The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on February 1, 2016, in the dispute between El Gouna Sporting Club, El Dakhlia Sporting Club, and the Egyptian Football Association (EFA). The case stemmed from El Gouna's claim that El Dakhlia had fielded an ineligible player, Samir Fekry, during the 2014/2015 season, as the player was simultaneously registered with another club, Military Production Sporting Club. El Gouna sought sanctions, including match forfeitures and point deductions, which could have altered league standings and potentially prevented their relegation. The EFA Players Affairs Status Committee initially imposed a six-month suspension and fine on the player but allowed his continued registration with El Dakhlia. Dissatisfied, El Gouna appealed to the EFA Appeals Committee, which upheld the decision, prompting El Gouna to bring the case to CAS.
The CAS panel addressed several procedural and substantive issues. It ruled that new documents submitted during the hearing were inadmissible unless essential and previously unavailable, per Article R56 of the CAS Code. The panel also emphasized that jurisdictional objections must be raised before addressing the merits of the dispute, as per Article R55, and that disciplinary claims must follow proper federation procedures. El Dakhlia's late jurisdictional objection was deemed inadmissible, and the EFA initially contested CAS jurisdiction but later withdrew its objection. The panel confirmed CAS's authority to rule on its own jurisdiction, citing Swiss law and prior rulings.
On the merits, the panel examined whether Mr. Ahmed El Sehefy had the legal authority to represent El Gouna, concluding he did, based on his board membership and a valid power of attorney. The panel also assessed whether the EFA Appeals Committee erred by not applying Article 87 of the EFA Competition Regulations, which mandates sanctions for fielding ineligible players. The panel determined that the Tournament Committee, not the Players Affairs and Status Committee, had exclusive jurisdiction to impose such sanctions. Since El Gouna filed its complaint with the wrong committee, the Appeals Committee lacked authority to act. The panel dismissed El Gouna's appeal, upholding the EFA Appeals Committee's decision and finding no jurisdictional error. The ruling underscored the importance of adhering to procedural rules and proper jurisdictional channels in sports disputes, bringing the matter to a close.