The case involves an arbitration before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) concerning an appeal filed by Shaker Alafoo against Hisham Al Taher, Mehrdad Pahlevanzadeh, and the Bahrain Mind Sports Association (BMSA). The dispute stemmed from alleged violations of the FIDE Code of Ethics during the 2016 Asian Chess Federation (ACF) presidential election, where Alafoo was part of the electoral ticket for a losing candidate. Alafoo accused the respondents of accepting undisclosed payments in exchange for political support for the opposing candidate and filed a complaint with the FIDE Ethics Commission (ETH). The ETH dismissed the complaint, finding no merit in the allegations of corruption or ethical violations. Alafoo then appealed the ETH decision to CAS, arguing procedural and substantive errors.
The CAS addressed jurisdictional issues, emphasizing the necessity of a valid arbitration agreement and the correct identification of parties. The federation or association issuing the appealed decision must be the primary respondent, acting as an "anchor respondent." The CAS noted that Alafoo failed to properly identify the correct respondent in his initial appeal, a procedural misstep that could not be corrected later under the CAS Code. The procedural history included disputes over the composition of the arbitration panel, with the respondents requesting a three-member panel while Alafoo preferred a sole arbitrator. The CAS appointed a sole arbitrator, though the initial appointee stepped down due to objections related to his professional association with Alafoo’s counsel. The case was bifurcated to first address jurisdictional objections raised by the respondents, who contested CAS jurisdiction.
Alafoo, initially acting pro se, argued that the ETH ignored critical evidence, including a letter implicating unethical conduct related to financial misreporting and election influence. He contended that the FIDE Code of Ethics and Statutes granted CAS jurisdiction, as he was directly aggrieved by the ETH decision, having been part of a losing presidential ticket in the 2014 ACF elections. He also sought to join FIDE as a party, arguing this would resolve jurisdictional objections. The respondents, meanwhile, challenged jurisdiction and the admissibility of certain submissions, asserting that Alafoo lacked standing and that the appeal was filed too late. They also argued the appeal was politically motivated and requested its dismissal, along with costs and legal fees.
FIDE, participating as an amicus curiae, supported the respondents' position, asserting that Alafoo lacked standing to appeal since he was not a party to the ETH proceedings and that the 2014 election results were final. The respondents further objected to Alafoo’s amended submissions, claiming they violated procedural rules by introducing new arguments and evidence after the appeal was filed. The Sole Arbitrator confirmed CAS jurisdiction, citing Article 13.1 of the FIDE Statutes and paragraph 4.5 of the FIDE Code of Ethics as valid arbitration agreements. The appeal was deemed admissible as it complied with procedural requirements under Articles R48 and R64.1 of the CAS Code. However, the Arbitrator noted that Alafoo’s failure to name FIDE as a respondent within the required timeframe under Article R49 and the inability to amend the appeal post-submission under Article R56 were critical procedural deficiencies.
The Arbitrator concluded that the absence of FIDE as a respondent and the procedural constraints on adding parties post-submission rendered the appeal without merit. The requested relief, including sanctions against the respondents and revocation of election results, necessitated FIDE’s participation as a party, which was not achieved. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and all other motions or requests for relief were denied. The case underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural requirements in CAS appeals and the limitations on adding parties after the appeal submission. It also highlights the interplay between jurisdiction, standing, and procedural compliance in arbitration cases involving sports governance.