The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) case 2011/A/2399 involved a dispute between the Football Inter Club Association (FICA) and the Haitian Football Federation (FHF) concerning a match played on December 30, 2010, between FICA and Accolade de Gros Morne in the Haitian second division. Accolade won the match 1-0, but it was later discovered that two of their players, Johny Beaubrun and Roberto Beaubrun, had participated under false identities using forged licenses. FICA filed a complaint on January 10, 2011, leading the FHF’s Disciplinary Commission to investigate. On February 11, 2011, the Commission ruled that fraud had occurred and imposed sanctions on Accolade, including relegation for at least two years, but dismissed FICA’s claim for a forfeit victory, citing FICA’s failure to formally protest the players’ eligibility before the match as required by competition rules.
FICA appealed to the FHF’s Appeals Commission, arguing that FIFA’s disciplinary code mandated a forfeit for fielding ineligible players. The Appeals Commission upheld the original decision on March 14, 2011, emphasizing FICA’s lack of a timely objection. FICA then appealed to CAS, seeking provisional measures to suspend the sanctions and allow their participation in the first division while the case was pending. CAS evaluated the request based on three criteria: irreparable harm, reasonable chance of success, and balance of interests. The tribunal found that FICA would suffer irreparable harm by missing the first-division season, while the logistical challenges for the FHF were insufficient to deny the request. Additionally, CAS noted that FICA’s appeal had a prima facie reasonable chance of success, given the admitted fraud and potential misapplication of procedural rules by the FHF.
The case centered on whether FICA’s failure to protest the ineligible players before the match precluded a forfeit, despite the proven fraud. CAS granted FICA’s request for provisional measures, allowing them to compete in the first division pending a final decision. The arbitrator emphasized the provisional nature of the ruling, noting that neither the FHF nor other involved parties had yet responded, and additional investigative measures might be ordered later. The decision underscored the need to balance preventing irreparable harm against procedural requirements, while cautioning that FICA’s appeal was not guaranteed to succeed. If the appeal were ultimately rejected, FICA risked having its participation annulled and facing reintegration challenges into the second division.
The arbitrator’s final decisions, under Articles R37 and R52 of the CAS Code, declared FICA’s request admissible, authorized their participation in the first division until a final ruling, and ordered the FHF to adjust the competition schedule accordingly. The case highlighted the complexities of enforcing disciplinary standards in sports, particularly when procedural lapses intersect with clear misconduct, and demonstrated CAS’s role in ensuring fair outcomes while maintaining procedural integrity.