The case involves a legal dispute between Croissant Sportif Chebbien (the Club) and the Tunisian Football Federation (FTF) before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The conflict arose when the Club, recently promoted to Tunisia's top football league, publicly criticized the FTF's financial management on social media, leading to six fines totaling 180,000 dinars imposed on the Club's secretary-general for damaging the reputation of football authorities. The Club appealed these fines but failed to submit a required financial clearance certificate (quitus) when registering for the 2020/2021 season, resulting in suspension from competitions. The Club attempted to settle the fines through alternative payment methods, but the FTF rejected these proposals, prompting the Club to appeal to the CAS. During the proceedings, the FTF issued another provisional suspension, citing additional violations, including the Club's repeated legal actions in civil courts over sports disputes, which contravened FTF regulations requiring arbitration through CAS.
The Club argued that the FTF's decisions violated fundamental procedural rights, including the right to be heard, as it was not informed of the proceedings or given access to the case file. It also claimed the decisions lacked formal requirements, such as proper composition of the federal bureau and majority approval, rendering them null or subject to annulment. The Club further contended that the FTF misapplied its own regulations, as no deadline existed for submitting the financial clearance, and the inactivity sanction was unjust. The Club accused the FTF of partiality and abuse of power, citing disproportionately high fines and sudden policy shifts without justification. The decisions caused significant harm, including loss of sponsors, partners, and professional players, threatening the Club's existence.
The FTF defended its actions, asserting that disciplinary procedures were initiated by the league, not the federation, and that it had repeatedly warned the Club about the financial clearance requirement. It maintained that the decisions were administrative, not disciplinary, and complied with binding regulations. The FTF emphasized that the Club's multiple legal actions in ordinary courts violated its statutes, which mandate arbitration through CAS after exhausting internal appeals.
The CAS examined its jurisdiction under Swiss law and the CAS Code, confirming its authority since the FTF's statutes require arbitration for sports disputes. The CAS ruled that the appeal against the November 2020 decision was admissible, as it was filed within the 21-day deadline, but rejected the attempt to include the December 2020 suspension in the same proceeding, as it required a separate appeal. The CAS found that the FTF's refusal to accept the Club's registration dossier due to the missing financial clearance was based on a misinterpretation of its regulations, as the clearance was not listed among the required documents for the initial submission. Consequently, the CAS annulled the FTF's decision to declare the Club inactive, though it did not reinstate the Club in the already concluded season. Instead, the Club was allowed to participate in the next season's Ligue 1 championship, provided it met the formal conditions.
The case underscores the tension between administrative enforcement and procedural fairness in sports governance, highlighting the importance of clear regulations and adherence to due process. The CAS's ruling balanced regulatory compliance with fairness, ensuring the Club's future participation was not unjustly hindered while upholding the FTF's authority to enforce its rules. The decision reflects the CAS's role in resolving disputes within the framework of sports law and maintaining the integrity of football governance.