The case TAS 2015/A/4069 involved Yeli Sissoko and others against the Malian Football Federation (FEMAFOOT), with a ruling issued by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on November 16, 2015. The dispute centered on governance issues related to FEMAFOOT's General Assembly (AG) held on January 10, 2015, and the suspension of Yeli Sissoko, President of FEMAFOOT's Central Finance Commission (CCF). The CAS addressed key legal questions, including its jurisdiction, the admissibility of the appeal, and procedural matters such as notification and deadlines.
The CAS affirmed its jurisdiction under Article R47 of its Code, noting that FEMAFOOT's statutes contained an arbitration clause without restrictions on who could invoke it. The panel emphasized that disputes related to the federation's statutes, including AG deliberations and decisions, fell within the scope of arbitration. Since no internal appeals mechanism existed within FEMAFOOT to review AG decisions, the appellants were deemed to have exhausted internal remedies. The CAS rejected FEMAFOOT's arguments challenging its competence, citing established jurisprudence that AG-related disputes inherently involve sporting and financial interests for federation members.
The appellants argued that the AG violated FEMAFOOT's statutes in several ways, including insufficient notice, failure to distribute required documents 21 days in advance, and lack of quorum after 29 of 55 delegates left in protest. They also contested Sissoko's suspension, claiming procedural irregularities and lack of due process. FEMAFOOT countered that the AG was valid, the appellants voluntarily left the meeting, and the appeal was time-barred under CAS rules.
Regarding procedural matters, the CAS ruled that, in the absence of specific notification requirements in FEMAFOOT's statutes, the term "receipt" of a decision should be interpreted as the moment the appellants became aware of it. The panel determined that the 21-day appeal deadline under Article R49 of the CAS Code began when the appellants learned of the contested decisions. Since the appeal was filed on May 20, 2015, well after the deadlines calculated from their awareness in February 2015, the CAS deemed it inadmissible.
The CAS also examined whether the dispute had a patrimonial character under Swiss law, concluding that AG decisions, including budget approvals and member suspensions, had financial implications for the appellants. However, this finding did not override the procedural deficiency of the late appeal.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed the appeal as inadmissible due to its tardiness, without addressing the merits of the case. The ruling underscored the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to statutory requirements in sports governance, reinforcing the CAS's role in resolving disputes when internal mechanisms are inadequate. The decision also clarified the interpretation of key procedural terms and deadlines in arbitration cases involving sports federations.