The case revolves around a dispute between football coach A. and the Turkish football club Caykur Rizespor Kulübü Dernegi following the termination of their employment contract. The Turkish Football Federation (TFF) Arbitration Board ruled on March 13, 2008, that A. had wrongfully terminated the contract, ordering him to repay an excessive advance of $306,666.67 with legal interest and reducing a compensation claim against him from 50,000 YTL to 10,000 YTL. The Board also imposed restrictions on A., barring him from obtaining new visas or registrations until the payments were made. A. appealed the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on July 11, 2008, requesting a stay of execution but failed to provide substantive arguments supporting his request. Caykur Rizespor contested CAS's jurisdiction, arguing the appeal did not meet legal criteria. The Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division provisionally found the appeal admissible on procedural grounds but left the jurisdictional question for a full panel to decide.
The Deputy President evaluated the stay request under CAS rules, which require assessing irreparable harm, the likelihood of the appeal's success, and the balance of interests between the parties. A. claimed irreparable harm but did not elaborate, while Caykur Rizespor did not oppose the stay, citing CAS jurisprudence on monetary disputes. The Deputy President acknowledged the appeal was filed on time but emphasized CAS could not impose measures on third parties like the TFF unless they were formally involved. The procedural aspects, including jurisdiction and the stay request, were deferred to the full CAS panel. The outcome hinges on whether CAS accepts jurisdiction and evaluates the merits of A.'s claims.
In a related analysis, the document examines the stay request's necessity, the Appellant's likelihood of success, and the balance of interests. The Appellant, Caykur Rizespor Kulübü Dernegi, correctly identified the Respondent but did not name the TFF as a respondent. The CAS informed the TFF of the procedure, but the TFF did not participate. The Deputy President referenced prior rulings stating CAS decisions against the TFF would only be effective if the TFF were a party. The CAS lacks authority to include third parties, placing the burden on the Appellant to identify correct respondents. The stay request was dismissed, with costs to be determined in the final award. The decision highlights the importance of proper party identification and CAS's limited authority over non-parties. The Deputy President dismissed the application to stay the execution of the TFF's March 13, 2008, decision, underscoring procedural rigor and jurisdictional boundaries in arbitration.