The case involves a dispute between the Algerian Handball Federation (FAHB) and several individuals against the International Handball Federation (IHF), adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in 2014. The central issue revolved around the legitimacy of the FAHB's leadership following elections held on March 14, 2013, which the IHF later declared null and void due to alleged violations of FAHB, IHF, and Olympic Charter statutes. The IHF cited concerns over government interference, particularly the suspension of the FAHB's Secretary-General by the Algerian Ministry of Sports, and demanded new elections within 90 days. The appellants, including Mohamed Derouaz, contested the IHF's intervention, arguing it interfered with the FAHB's autonomy and violated procedural norms.
The CAS examined its jurisdiction under Article R47 of its Code, which requires three conditions: the existence of a formal decision, an arbitration agreement, and the exhaustion of prior legal remedies. The IHF argued that no formal decision had been issued to warrant an appeal, as its communications were procedural steps rather than binding legal acts. The CAS agreed, noting that the IHF's actions, such as forming a working group or issuing warnings, did not qualify as appealable decisions. Additionally, the IHF statutes limit CAS jurisdiction to specific cases like doping or individual athlete complaints, which did not apply here. The appellants also failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as they had pending appeals before the Algerian Council of State against ministerial decrees.
The procedural history revealed complexities, including disputes over representation and the legitimacy of the appellants' claims. The FAHB and some appellants disavowed their legal representative, Me Ben Belkacem, while others confirmed his mandate. The IHF contested the admissibility of the appeal, arguing the appellants lacked standing and that internal remedies had not been exhausted. A hearing was held on June 4, 2014, where witnesses testified about governance issues and ministerial interference. The appellants sought the annulment of IHF decisions and their reinstatement as FAHB representatives, while the IHF maintained its actions were lawful and the appeal unfounded.
The CAS ultimately ruled it lacked jurisdiction, dismissing the appeal without examining the merits. The decision underscored the importance of procedural compliance and the limits of CAS authority in disputes involving internal federation governance. The case highlights the challenges of balancing international federation oversight with national autonomy, as well as the necessity of clear, formal decisions and exhaustion of legal remedies before invoking CAS jurisdiction. The final ruling, issued on August 24, 2014, affirmed the CAS's inability to intervene in the dispute, rejecting all further claims by the parties.