The case involves a dispute before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) between the Association Sportive Etoile du Congo (Appellant), the Congolese Football Federation (FECOFOOT), and the Club Athlétique Renaissance Aiglons (CARA). The dispute arose during the 2014 Coupe du Congo, specifically concerning the eligibility of two CARA players, Tchilimbou Mavoungou Brandt Harris and Losseni Komara, who participated in a semi-final match against Etoile du Congo on July 22, 2014. Etoile du Congo contested the players' qualifications, leading to an investigation by FECOFOOT's disciplinary commission. The commission found Harris irregularly qualified, imposing sanctions on CARA, including a one-year suspension for Harris and CARA's secretary-general, a match forfeit, and financial penalties. However, the commission allowed the return match scheduled for August 5, 2014, to proceed.
Etoile du Congo appealed to CAS, arguing the disciplinary commission's decision was flawed and the match should not have proceeded. The case highlighted procedural complexities, including the standing of parties to appeal and the concept of a "protectable interest" under Swiss law, which requires the appellant to demonstrate a practical benefit from overturning the decision. The tribunal also examined irregularities in player transfers, particularly falsified documents for Komara's transfer.
The dispute escalated when Etoile du Congo failed to appear for the rescheduled match on August 8, 2014, resulting in a forfeit. FECOFOOT's Appeals Commission later overturned earlier sanctions, reinstating the original 1-1 match result and validating Harris's eligibility. Etoile du Congo then appealed to CAS on September 1, 2014, seeking annulment of the decision, CARA's disqualification, player suspensions, and damages. FECOFOOT and CARA countered, with FECOFOOT requesting dismissal and damages for financial losses.
The CAS addressed jurisdictional and procedural issues, confirming its authority under Article 47 of the 2014 Congo Cup regulations and Article R47 of the CAS Code. The tribunal applied Swiss law as supplementary procedural guidance, given the absence of explicit legal choices by the parties. Key legal questions included whether Etoile du Congo had standing to appeal and whether the players' registrations were irregular. The arbitrator concluded Etoile du Congo's absence from the match constituted an implicit resignation under Article 57 of the competition regulations, disqualifying it from further appeals.
The CAS ruled Etoile du Congo lacked standing to challenge FECOFOOT's decisions, as its resignation nullified any practical interest in the case. The appeal was deemed inadmissible, and all claims, including damages, were dismissed. The tribunal emphasized that annulling FECOFOOT's decisions would not alter Etoile du Congo's disqualification or competition outcome. The case underscores the complexities of player eligibility disputes, procedural adherence in sports arbitration, and the consequences of non-compliance with competition regulations. The final decision upheld the Appeals Commission's ruling, closing the dispute.