The case revolves around a dispute between a Turkish football coach and the Turkish football club Caykur Rizespor Kulübü Dernegi, with the Turkish Football Federation (TFF) intervening. The conflict stemmed from the termination of the coach's employment contract. Initially, the coach filed a claim with the TFF’s Arbitration Board, which ruled his termination unlawful and ordered him to pay compensation. Dissatisfied, the coach appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking its jurisdiction over the matter. The central issue before the CAS Panel was whether it had the authority to hear the appeal. The Panel emphasized that CAS jurisdiction requires either an explicit agreement between the parties to submit to CAS arbitration or provisions in the statutes or regulations of the body issuing the appealed decision allowing for an appeal to CAS. The Panel found no such agreement, as both the club and the TFF contested CAS jurisdiction. Additionally, the Panel examined the TFF regulations and determined they did not provide for CAS jurisdiction in disputes lacking an international dimension, which was the case here since both parties were Turkish.
The coach argued that a TFF disciplinary decision, which stated no sanction would be imposed due to his appeal to CAS, implied acceptance of CAS jurisdiction. The Panel rejected this, clarifying that the decision only addressed disciplinary consequences and did not constitute an acceptance of CAS authority. The Panel also reviewed the employment contract but found no clause submitting disputes to CAS arbitration. Ultimately, the Panel concluded that CAS lacked jurisdiction, as neither the parties’ agreement nor the TFF regulations provided a basis for CAS involvement. The decision underscores the necessity of clear jurisdictional foundations for CAS to adjudicate disputes and reinforces the principle that CAS cannot assume jurisdiction without proper legal or contractual basis.
The case also highlights the coach's frustration with the TFF's handling of his claim and his perception that Article 14 of the TFF regulations limited his right to appeal. The Panel acknowledged his concerns but stressed that it could not dictate the structure of an association's internal rules. The appeal was filed after an amendment to Article 14 of the TFF regulations, which barred CAS jurisdiction. The Panel ruled that the conditions of Article R47 of the CAS Code were not met, meaning CAS lacked authority to rule on the matter. All other requests for relief were dismissed. The final award, dated February 20, 2009, confirmed the dismissal of all further claims, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the applicable regulations of sports federations and the limitations of external judicial bodies like CAS in overriding internal governance structures. The case illustrates the challenges individuals face when seeking redress through external avenues if the governing body's rules restrict such appeals.