The case involves a dispute between Adnan Darjal and the Iraq Football Association (IFA) regarding the validity of Darjal's candidacy for the position of President of the IFA Executive Committee in an election held on 31 May 2018. Darjal's candidacy was rejected by the IFA Electoral Committee, citing his failure to meet the conditions outlined in Article 33(2) of the IFA Statutes, specifically the requirement to produce at least three valid nomination letters from IFA members. Darjal appealed this decision to the IFA Electoral Appeal Committee, which upheld the rejection, leading him to take the matter to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS was tasked with determining whether it had jurisdiction over the dispute and whether Darjal's appeal was admissible. The Sole Arbitrator, Prof. Philippe Sands QC, ruled that under Article 62 of the IFA Statutes, disputes within the association, including those related to elections, must be resolved through arbitration, either by an independent tribunal recognized by the IFA or the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) or by the CAS. The Arbitrator confirmed the CAS's jurisdiction, as the IFA Statutes did not permit such disputes to be submitted to domestic courts. However, the Arbitrator found Darjal's appeal inadmissible because the election in question had already been declared invalid in a separate award, rendering his request for relief—seeking validation of his candidacy for that specific election—moot.
The dispute highlighted procedural complexities, including delays and a seven-month suspension requested by Darjal. The IFA argued that the Electoral Code, as lex specialis, barred appeals against decisions of the Electoral Appeals Committee (EAC), including to the CAS. Darjal countered that the IFA Statutes, as the highest-ranking rules, prevailed over the Electoral Code and that no provision explicitly prevented an appeal to the CAS. The Sole Arbitrator rejected the IFA's arguments, emphasizing the hierarchical supremacy of the IFA Statutes and confirming the CAS's broad jurisdiction over internal disputes.
Despite the jurisdictional ruling, the Arbitrator dismissed Darjal's appeal as inadmissible, noting that the election had been invalidated in a separate case (CAS 2018/A/5824), which ordered a new election. The Arbitrator concluded that Darjal's original appeal no longer had practical relevance, as any future elections would require a new candidacy submission. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to the IFA Statutes and Electoral Code while clarifying the limits of the CAS's jurisdiction in cases where the requested relief lacks practical purpose.
The case also addressed broader issues of procedural fairness, eligibility criteria, and the interplay between individual rights and organizational rules in sports governance. Darjal argued that the EAC overstepped its authority by conducting a de novo review without granting him an oral hearing, violating his right to defense. The IFA maintained that Darjal failed to meet several prerequisites for candidacy, including active involvement in football, sufficient administrative experience, and proper nomination procedures. The Arbitrator's decision reinforced the CAS's role in resolving football-related disputes while emphasizing the need for future elections to comply strictly with IFA statutes.
Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and all further relief requests were denied, concluding the matter. The case serves as a precedent for interpreting sports governance rules and the jurisdictional boundaries of arbitration in electoral disputes within football associations.