The case involves a complex arbitration dispute between Adel Fahim El Sayed Sallem (Appellant) and Yasser Abdel Karim Ali (Respondent) before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute originated from the Egyptian Bodybuilding Federation (EBF) elections held on November 23, 2017, where both parties were candidates for the presidency. The Appellant, who had been EBF President since 1994, was re-elected, but the Respondent challenged his candidacy, arguing that criminal judgments against the Appellant disqualified him due to lack of good reputation. The Egyptian Sporting Settlement & Arbitration Centre ruled in favor of the Respondent on November 26, 2017, annulling the EBF’s acceptance of the Appellant’s candidacy and invalidating the election results. The Appellant appealed this decision to the Cairo Court of Appeal, which rejected his claim on April 4, 2018.
On January 24, 2018, the Appellant filed an appeal with CAS, requesting provisional measures to suspend enforcement of the Arbitration Centre’s decision. The CAS clarified that only the Appellant and Respondent were formal parties to the proceedings, rejecting the Appellant’s designation of other entities as "affected parties." The Respondent objected to a sole arbitrator and requested a three-member panel, while the Appellant maintained his preference for a sole arbitrator. The Respondent also refused to pay his share of the advance on costs. The CAS proceedings addressed procedural matters, including the language of proceedings and panel composition, before moving to substantive legal issues.
The CAS award outlined key legal principles, emphasizing the importance of proper notification, jurisdictional acceptance, and evidentiary standards in sports-related arbitration. The central issue revolved around whether the Appellant received proper notification of the original decision, which would determine the starting point for the 21-day appeal deadline under Article R49 of the CAS Code. The Respondent argued the appeal was filed late, as the decision was announced in the presence of both parties on November 26, 2017, and the Appellant later commented on it in the media and filed an appeal with the Cairo Court of Appeal on December 5, 2017. The Appellant, however, denied receiving official notification of the full, motivated decision, arguing that mere awareness or public commentary did not constitute formal notification under CAS standards. The Sole Arbitrator ruled in favor of the Appellant, deeming the appeal admissible due to insufficient proof of proper notification.
On the merits, the Appellant challenged the competence of the Arbitration Centre, arguing it lacked jurisdiction under the Bylaws and that no arbitration agreement existed between the parties. He contended the dispute did not fall within the scope of arbitration as defined by the Bylaws, which he claimed only covered sports-related matters, not administrative nominations. The Respondent countered that the Arbitration Centre was competent, citing Article 66 of the Sports Law, which allows any sports dispute to be brought before the Arbitration Centre. The Sole Arbitrator found the jurisdictional objections irrelevant, as the Appellant failed to raise them during the initial proceedings, thereby waiving the right to challenge jurisdiction later.
The Appellant also argued the decision violated the presumption of innocence and the principle of res judicata, as it relied on judgments either under review or unrelated to him. The Respondent asserted the judgments referenced in the decision were official and carried the Appellant’s unique ID number, indicating his involvement in criminal cases. The Sole Arbitrator found the Respondent’s evidence insufficient to conclusively link these judgments to the Appellant, emphasizing the need for "comfortable satisfaction" in such matters. The Sole Arbitrator ruled the Respondent failed to meet the burden of proof regarding the Appellant’s lack of good conduct and reputation, leading to the annulment of the original decision.
The Appellant sought CHF 100,000 in compensation for reputational and moral harm, but the Sole Arbitrator dismissed this request, finding no evidence of illegitimate actions by the Respondent. The final ruling upheld the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Centre but set aside its November 2017 decision, dismissing the Appellant’s claim for damages and all other motions. The appeal was deemed admissible and partially upheld, concluding the case without further penalties or compensations. The case highlights the procedural complexities in arbitration appeals and the necessity of adhering to established legal principles in disciplinary disputes within sports governance.