Equatorial Guinea Football Federation (FEGUIFUT) v. Confédération Africaine de Football (CAF), Fédération Malienne de Football (FEMAFOOT)

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CAF BODIES

4. A summary of the most relevant facts and the background giving rise to the present dispute will be developed based on the parties’ written submissions, the evidence filed with such submissions, and the statements made by the parties and the evidence taken at the hearing held in the present case. Additional facts may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the legal discussion which follows. The Panel refers in the present Award only to the submissions and evidence it considers necessary to explain its reasoning. The Panel, however, has considered all the factual allegations, legal arguments, and evidence submitted by the parties during the present proceedings.

5. At the Preliminary Competition of the 2016 Africa Women Cup of Nations (hereinafter, the “WAFCON” or the “Competition”) the national teams of Mali and Equatorial Guinea played the following two matches on home and away basis (hereinafter, the “Matches”):

- On 6 April 2016, the first leg match was played in Bamako which resulted in a tie (1 -1).

- On 10 April 2016, the second leg match, played in Malabo, ended 2-1 in favour of the FEGUIFUT.

Given the final joint result of the Matches (3-2 in favour of the FEGUIFUT), the latter qualified for the Competition.

6. On 11 April 2016, FIFA published a media release on its website, which stated that the FEGUIFUT used two passports containing different information for the player Camila do Carmo Nobre de Oliveira (hereinafter, the “Player”). Consequently, the FEGUIFUT was expelled from the 2020 Women’s Olympic Football Tournament. Furthermore, the Player was sanctioned with a ten-match suspension. The mentioned press-release (hereinafter, the “FIFA Media Release”), inter alia, reads as follows:

“Equatorial Guinea will not compete in the preliminary competition of the Women’s Olympic Football tournament 2020 following a decision taken by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.

The Disciplinary Committee held the Equatorial Guinea Football Association liable for the use of forged or falsified documents. More precisely, it found evidence of the use of two passports with different dates of birth for the player Camila Maria do Carmo Nobre de Oliveira, who participated in several matches of the preliminary competition of the Women’s Olympic Football Tournament 2016. Two birth certificates containing divergent information regarding the player’s parental filiation were also provided.

In addition to the expulsion from the Women’s Olympic Football Tournament, 2020, (…) the player was sanctioned with a ten-match suspension, to be served in the next matches of the representative team of Equatorial Guinea for which she would be eligible. (…)

The decisions of the Disciplinary Committee were duly notified today”.

7. On 14 April 2016, the FMF informed the CAF about the FIFA Media Release since the Player had participated in the Matches against the FMF.

8. In light of the above, the CAF opened an investigation which revealed that:

- For the WAFCON 2014, the FEGUIFUT registered in the CAF Competition Matching System (hereinafter “CMS”) a player under the name “Camila Maria Nobre de Carmo” with date of birth 7 October 1994; while,

- For the WAFCON 2016, the FEGUIFUT registered a “new” player under the name “Camila do Carmo Nobre de Oliveira” with date of birth 10 June 1988 and with passport number F0202216 issued by the authorities of Guinea Equatorial on 3 September 2015.

9. On 18 May 2016, the CAF invited the FEGUIFUT to explain the contradictory information in relation to the Player.

10. The FEGUIFUT confirmed that both registrations were related to the same Player and explained that this situation was due to an administrative mistake provoked by the Equatoguinean authorities that had issued the Player’s first passport with a different name and a different date of birth. The FEGUIFUT also explained that this mistake was rectified in September 2015 with the issuance of the new passport.

11. On 4 August 2016, the CAF’s Commission for the Organisation of Women’s Football rendered a disciplinary decision against the FEGUIFUT (hereinafter, the “Disciplinary Decision”), in which it was stated that:

- The FEGUIFUT should have informed CAF of the modification to the Player’s information (originally entered in 2014) when it registered the Player into the 2016 WAFCON, instead of making a new registration record for the Player.

- Therefore, the participation of the Player during the Matches was considered to be against the regulations.

- The investigations and sanctions rendered by FIFA against the FEGUIFUT also prove the fraud that the latter committed in relation to the contradictory information regarding the identity of the Player.

- According to Articles 43 and 44 of the Regulations of the WAFCON (hereinafter, the “Competition Regulations”), the female national team of Equatorial Guinea is disqualified from the 2016 WAFCON and is suspended from participating in the next two WAFCON competitions (i.e., 2018 and 2020).

12. The FEGUIFUT filed an appeal before the CAF’s Appeal Committee (hereinafter, the “Appeal Committee”) against the Disciplinary Decision.

13. On 3 September 2016, a hearing took place at the CAF’s headquarters in El Cairo.

14. On the same day, the Appeal Committee confirmed the Disciplinary Decision. The operative part of its decision (hereinafter, the “Appealed Decision”), reads as follows 1:

“(…)

Déclarer régulier, en la forme, l’appel interjeté par la FEGUIFUT :

Sur le fond, confirme la décision du Comité d’organisation en ce qu’il a:

– Disqualifié la Guinée Equatoriale de la CAN Féminine 2016

– Qualifié le Mali pour la phase finale de la CAN féminine 2016 en remplacement de la Guinée Equatoriale

– Suspendu la Guinée Equatoriale de la CAN Féminine 2018 et 2020.

Les frais et débours relatifs à la procédure devant le Jury d’Appel de la CAF sont mis à la charge de l’appelante en application des dispositions de l’Article 58 du Code Disciplinaire de la CAF,

1 Freely translated by the Panel as follows:

“(…) To declare admissible, in the form, the appeal filed by the FEGUIFUT : On the merits, to confirm the decision of the Organizing Committee: – To disqualify Equatorial Guinea from the WAFCON 2016 – To qualify Mali for the final phase of the WAFCON 2016 in replacement of Equatorial Guinea. – To suspend Equatorial Guinea from the WAFCON 2018 and 2020. The costs and disbursements related to the proceedings before the CAF Appeal Committee shall be borne by the Appellant in accordance with Article 58 of the CAF Disciplinary Code. This decision is notified to the Appellant and to the FEMAFOOT”.

La présente décision a été notifiée à l’appelante ainsi qu’á la FEMAFOOT”.

15. On 18 September 2016, the Appeal Committee notified the grounds of the Appealed Decision to the FEGUIFUT, which may be summarized as follows:

- The FEGUIFUT, despite being aware of the errors in the Player’s passport since September 2015, failed to inform the CAF about them. Therefore, the FEGUIFUT intentionally concealed an anomaly concerning the identity of the Player while, simultaneously, benefitting from her services in its national team.

- It cannot be reasonably sustained that the FEGUIFUT did not act deliberately, because it clearly understood – or at least ought to have presumed – the problems that the double identity of the Player would cause. It is thus clear that the FEGUIFUT acted with full knowledge of the facts and took the risk of registering the Player without alerting the CAF.

- In consequence, the FEGUIFUT has privileged its sole interest in detriment of the principles of respect to the regulations and honesty to the sporting competition that governs the CAF.

- The conduct of the FEGUIFUT violated Articles 37.4, 43 and 44 of the Competition Regulations, Article 82 of the CAF Disciplinary Code and Article 7 of the CAF Statutes and, thus, the Disciplinary Decision is confirmed.

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

16. On 28 September 2016, the FEGUIFUT filed a Statement of Appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (hereinafter, the “CAS”) against the Appealed Decision passed by the Appeal Committee on 3 September 2016. FEGUIFUT submitted the following requests for relief:

“(…) to accept this request presented within the time limit to appeal and admitting the STATEMENT OF APPEAL, against the APPEAL BOARD OF THE AFRICAN FOOTBALL CONFEDERATION’S (CAF) RESOLUTION, DATED 18 TH SEPTEMBER 2016.

We also urge TO REVOKE THE DECISION OF THE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE OF THE AFRICAN FOOTBALL CONFEDERATION’S, dated AUGUST 4 TH 2016, (…)

Moreover, in case that the decision shall not be revoked, our request would be:

– To let be qualified both teams, Equatorial Guinea and Mali, to the Final Tournament of the CAN Feminine 2016”.

17. On 29 September 2016, in accordance with Article 48 para. 1 of the Code of Sports-related

Arbitration (hereinafter, the “Code”), the CAS Court Office invited the Appellant to complete some missing information in its Statement of Appeal.

18. On 6 October 2016, the Appellant completed the information requested by the CAS Court Office. Furthermore, on the same day, it requested that the case be handled in an expedited manner in accordance with Article R52 of the Code.

19. On 11 October 2016, the Appellant filed its Appeal Brief with the following requests for relief:

“I SUBMIT TO THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT, asking to receive this writing, I ask to formalize DEMAND FOR SIMPLIFIED ARBITRATION PROCEDURE to kindly admit and in light of the exposed, revoke the Decision of the Appeals Board of the CAF 18 th September 2016, by which the sanction of August 4 th 2016 is confirmed and, therefore:

– Allow Equatorial Guinea’s Football Feminine Team to participate in the Women’s CAN 2016.

– Lift the suspension of the participation of Equatorial Guinea’s Football Feminine Team and allow them to dispute next two editions (2018-2020).

– Return to FEGUIFUT the deposit of 3,000 $ dollars made in the CAF”.

20. Moreover, the Appellant proposed that the case be solved by a Sole Arbitrator but, if the matter was to be finally submitted to a three-member Panel, it would appoint Mr. Carlos del Campo Colás as arbitrator.

21. On 20 October 2016, the Appellant withdrew its request regarding the expedited procedure to be held in this case.

22. On 25 October 2016, the CAF objected to the Appellant’s proposal regarding the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to solve the present dispute.

23. On 2 November 2016, the CAS Court Office informed the parties that the Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division had decided to submit the procedure to a three - member Panel and therefore the Respondents were invited to nominate an arbitrator from the list of CAS arbitrators.

24. On 8 November 2016, the First Respondent nominated Mr. Raymond Hack as an arbitrator and, consequently, the CAS Court Office invited the Second Respondent to advise whether it agreed with such a nomination or not.

25. On 15 November 2016, the First Respondent filed its Answer to the Appeal with the following requests for relief:

“1. [T]he decision issued by the CAF Appeal Board on 3 September 2016 is to be affirmed;

2. The CAS will grant the Respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal of the Equatoguinean Football Federation;

3. The CAF is granted an Award for costs of 50.000 Swiss Francs”.

26. On the same day, the CAS Court Office acknowledged that the Second Respondent remained silent with respect to the nomination of Mr. Hack and, therefore, such silence was considered an agreement with his nomination.

27. On 16 November 2016, the CAS Court Office acknowledged that Mr. Raymond Hack declined to serve as an arbitrator in this matter and, consequently, the Respondents were once again invited to jointly nominate an arbitrator from the list of CAS arbitrators.

28. From 19 November 2016 until 3 December 2016, the Competition took place without the participation of the FEGUIFUT.

29. On 29 November 2016, the CAS Court Office acknowledged that the Second Respondent did not file its answer to the appeal brief within the granted deadline and, in fact, no communications were received from this party. Furthermore, the CAS Court Office advised the parties that, pursuant to Article R56 of the Code, they were no longer authorized to supplement or amend their requests or their arguments, produce new exhibits, or specify further evidence in which they intended to rely. The parties were also invited to inform the CAS Court Office whether they preferred a hearing to be held in the present procedure or not. Lastly, the CAS Court Office acknowledged that the Respondents did not nominate an arbitrator within the given deadline and, in consequence, the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division would proceed with the appointment in lieu of the Respondents.

30. On the same 29 November 2016, the First Respondent nominated Prof. Stavros Brekoulakis as arbitrator in the present case.

31. On 30 November 2016, the CAS Court Office invited the Appellant to advise by 1 December 2016 whether it agreed with the CAF’s late nomination of an arbitrator or had any objection in this respect.

32. On 2 December 2016, the CAS Court Office acknowledged that the Appellant did not raise any objection to the First Respondent’s late nomination of an arbitrator within the granted deadline and, therefore, invited the Second Respondent to confirm whether it agreed with Prof. Brekoulakis’ nomination.

33. On 5 December 2016, the Appellant objected the First Respondent’s late nomination of an arbitrator. However, the CAS Court Office rejected this objection because it was not filed within the time limit granted by the CAS letter of 30 November 2016.

34. On 7 December 2016, the CAS Court Office acknowledged that the Second Respondent did not object to the nomination of Prof. Stavros Brekoulakis as arbitrator.

35. On 12 December 2016, in accordance with Article R54 of the Code, the CAS Court Office informed the parties that the Panel appointed to settle the present dispute had been constituted as follows:

President: Mr Michele Bernasconi, attorney-at-law in Zurich, Switzerland.

Arbitrators: Mr Carlos del Campo Colás, attorney-at-law in Madrid, Spain.

Prof. Stavros Brekoulakis, professor of law in London, United Kingdom.

36. On 19 December 2016, the CAS Court Office informed the parties that the Panel had decided to hold a hearing on the present matter.

37. On 28 December 2016, the CAS Court Office informed the parties that the date of the hearing was set for 9 March 2017.

38. On 9 January and 19 January 2017 respectively, the Appellant and the First Respondent signed the Order of Procedure. However, despite being provided with the Order of Procedure for its signature, the Second Respondent did not return it within the granted deadline and the CAS Court Office did not receive any communication from this party.

39. On 8 March 2017, the CAS Court Office advised the parties that Mr. Roberto Nájera Reyes, attorney-at-law in Barcelona, Spain, would assist the Panel as Ad hoc Clerk.

40. The hearing of the present procedure took place in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 9 March 2017. At the hearing, the Appellant was represented by its in-house lawyer, Ms. Clara Bonkanka and by its external legal counsel, Mr. Mateo Castellá Bonet (who was assisted by a translator, Ms Ángeles Cardona). The First Respondent was represented by its lawyer, Mr. Stéphane Ceccaldi. No representatives attended on behalf of the Second Respondent. In addition, Mr. Antonio de Quesada, Counsel to the CAS, and Mr. Roberto Nájera Reyes, Ad hoc Clerk, assisted the Panel at the hearing.

41. At the outset of the hearing, both parties held a private meeting in order to reach an amicable resolution to the dispute; however, the counsel of the First Respondent stated that he did not have the authority to negotiate a settlement at that moment.

42. Furthermore, the Appellant and the First Respondent confirmed that they had no objections as to the constitution of the Panel and they did not object to the jurisdiction of the CAS.

43. At the hearing, the parties had the opportunity to present their case, to submit their arguments and to comment on the issues and questions raised by the Panel, and among them, on the provisions of CAF regulations mentioned in the Appealed Decision and on Article 45 of the Competition Regulations in particular. Further, the Panel asked the Appellant if it maintained all of its requests for relief because, in its Statement of Appeal, it had requested, inter alia, “to let

be qualified both teams, Equatorial Guinea and Mali, to the Final Tournament of the CAN Feminine 2016” and in its Appeal Brief it requested to “[a]llow Equatorial Guinea’s Football Team to participate in the Women’s CAN 2016”. The Appellant answered that, since the WAFCON 2016 had already concluded, it withdrew such latter request for relief and that the Panel only had to consider the following:

“(…)

– Lift the suspension of the participation of Equatorial Guinea’s Football Feminine Team and allow them to dispute next two editions (2018-2020).

– Return to FEGUIFUT the deposit of 3,000 $ dollars made in the CAF”.

44. Before the relevant closing statements, the counsel of the Appellant informed the Panel that Mr. Iván William Molowe (DAF of the Equatorial Guinea’s Football Federation) had just arrived in Lausanne and requested that this gentleman be summoned at the hearing. The First Respondent did not object to the Appellant’s request and, thus, the Panel accepted to summon him as representative of the Appellant.

45. Moreover, in its closing statement, the Appellant requested the Panel to suspend the issuance of the award for at least one month in order to try to find an amicable settlement with the First Respondent. In turn, the counsel of the First Respondent reiterated that he did not have the authority to reach a settlement agreement with the Appellant and that he would have to talk with his client about the Appellant’s proposal. In view of the foregoing, the Panel decided to grant the First Respondent a deadline to advise whether it agreed with the suspension of the procedure or not.

46. Finally, at the end of the hearing, all the parties expressly declared that they did not have any objection with respect to the procedure and that their right to be heard had been fully respected.

47. On the same 9 March 2017, the CAS Court Office sent a letter requesting the First Respondent to inform by 16 March 2017, if it agreed to the suspension of the procedure or not.

48. On 20 March 2017, the Appellant reiterated its request for the suspension of the proceedings because it had “opened direct negotiations with the CAF”.

49. On the same day, the CAS Court Office requested the First Respondent to confirm whether it agreed with such suspension by 23 March 2017 or not.

50. On 31 March 2017, and in absence of any communication from the First Respondent, the CAS Court Office advised the parties that the Panel would proceed with the issuance of the award.

IV. SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS

51. The following summary of the parties’ positions is illustrative only and does not necessarily comprise each and every contention put forward by the parties. The Panel, however, has carefully considered, for the purposes of the legal analysis which follows all the submissions made by the parties, even if there is no specific reference to those submissions in the following summary.

IV.1. The Appellant

52. The Appellant’s submissions, in essence, may be summarized as follows:

a) Flaws in the CAF’s proceedings

53. On 3 September 2016, when the CAF hearing took place in El Cairo, the FEGUIFUT stated that the regulations for the 2016 WAFCON were not published and were unknown to it. In fact, as it appears from the CAF’s website, the Competition Regulations were only published on 19 September 2016 (i.e. after the Appealed Decision). In other words, the CAF conducted proceedings and sanctioned the FEGUIFUT based on regulations and sanctions unknown to the FEGUIFUT, leaving it in a total state of defenselessness.

54. Moreover, the CAF ascertains that the investigation started due to the protest of the FMF which, theoretically and in accordance with Article 41 of the Competition Regulations, had to file its protest within 48 hours after the match and to deposit USD 2,000. However, after requesting the relevant documents several times, the CAF failed to provide any information on this and the FMF did not appear in the disciplinary file. Therefore, the Panel shall establish the nullity of the disciplinary proceedings.

b) The errors committed by the FEGUIFUT

55. It is true that, in 2014, the FEGUIFUT registered the Player with a passport containing incorrect name and date of birth. However, this circumstance is not attributable to the FEGUIFUT but to the Equatoguinean authorities.

56. In September 2015, when the FEGUIFUT became aware of these mistakes, it requested the Equatoguinean authorities to correct them. Furthermore, also in September 2015, the FEGUIFUT informed FIFA about this situation and filed all the relevant documents that attested the errors contained in the Player’s first passport. Therefore, the FEGUIFUT acknowledged before FIFA – as it acknowledges in these CAS proceedings – that it committed an error when it registered the Player with wrong information in her passport in 2014.

57. The FEGUIFUT was also wrong by not notifying the CAF of the errors in the Player’s passport. However, this mistake was not intentional or deliberate. In fact, the FEGUIFUT did not know that it had to notify the CAF about such error. The FEGUIFUT honestly believed that, since the WAFCON 2016 was a new competition, it was unnecessary to inform the CAF about the

changes in the Player’s information and that it was sufficient to register her with the correct passport in accordance with the Competition Regulations.

58. It is thus evident that there was neither bad faith nor any attempt of fraud because (i) the Player was registered with her valid passport, (ii) the WAFCON has only one category with no agelimit, and (iii) the changes in the Player’s information neither represented any advantage for the FEGUIFUT nor damaged the FMF. The alleged advantage, in any case, could have been with respect to the 2014 WAFCON but not the 2016 competition.

59. Therefore, the Appealed Decision is incorrect when it framed FEGUIFUT’s conduct as fraud and if the Panel considers that the FEGUIFUT committed any violation, it should be framed as an “administrative error” (as is provided in Article 45 of the Competition Regulations).

c) The proper alignment of the Player in the Matches

60. In accordance with the Competition Regulations, the FEGUIFUT sent the list of the 21 players called for the Matches and the CAF commissioner had the obligation to forbid the participation of any player who did not meet the standards. In fact, the CAF neither found any illegal situation with the Player nor warned the FEGUIFUT about any irregular situation. Therefore, the participation of the Player during the Matches was appropriate.

61. Furthermore, the FEGUIFUT was notified of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee’s decision on 12 April; i.e. after the Matches. Thus, the Player was correctly aligned in the relevant matches and all arguments regarding the sanction imposed by FIFA cannot be taken into account in these proceedings.

IV.2. The First Respondent

62. The First Respondent’s submissions, in essence, may be summarized as follows:

a) Regarding the alleged flaws in the CAF’s proceedings

63. The Appellant cannot argue that it did not know about the Competition Regulations at the moment of the disciplinary proceedings, firstly because the regulations were in force since 28 October 2015 (as established in Article 112) and, secondly, because Article 11 of the Competition Regulations established a deadline to register the national association for their participation in the Competition which was duly complied with by the FEGUIFUT. In other words, if the Appellant’s arguments were to be true, it would not have registered in the 2016 WAFCON.

64. In any case, if any flaws existed in the CAF’s proceedings, the de novo power of the CAS procedure can heal them.

b) The fraud committed by the FEGUIFUT

65. The CAF discovered that the Player had two registrations containing different data in the CMS. After the relevant investigation, the CAF concluded that the FEGUIFUT deliberately registered the same Player under different identities in two successive WAFCON competitions. This situation created uncertainty because the CAF still cannot know which the valid passport – and information – of the Player is and, consequently, in accordance with Articles 36, 37, 43 and 44 of the Competition Regulations, the FEGUIFUT’s conduct is constitutive of fraud.

66. The CAF understands that fraud is “cheating that goes beyond an error”. In this sense, the FEGUIFUT’s bad faith is proven by the fact that FEGUIFUT registered the Player as a “new” person (i.e. as if she were another player), instead of correcting her data in her previous CMS record.

67. Furthermore, the FEGUIFUT’s intention of cheating is confirmed (or at the least can be legitimately inferred) because it received the notification of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee’s decision on 6 April 2016 (which sanctioned the FEGUIFUT for the same reason) and, instead of communicating this situation to the CAF (at least at this later stage), the FEGUIFUT remained silent. For sake of clarity, even assuming that the FEGUIFUT committed an “honest mistake” when it registered the Player for the Competition (quod non), it knew that there was a problem with the Player’s identity and thus had the obligation of informing the CAF on this, and it did not.

68. FIFA also decided that the FEGUIFUT committed fraud for the very same reasons analyzed for this case, and even though the FIFA Disciplinary Committee’s decision is related to a different competition, it is relevant to explain the FEGUIFUT’s repeated modus operandi.

69. The “benefit” is not a criterion to consider when determining whether “fraud” exists or not: once the intention of cheating is proven, it is irrelevant whether this represents an advantage or not. Nevertheless, it is assumed that when cheating occurs there is always a benefit for the one committing the fraud. In this case, for example, the FEGUIFUT could avoid the admission that they cheated in 2014 and avoid the consequences of that conduct.

70. The Appellant further blames the CAF commissioner for not being aware of the errors in the Player’s information and, thus, contends that her alignment in the Matches was proper, which is unacceptable. Firstly, according to Articles 36 and 37 of the Competition Regulations, the FEGUIFUT was liable to register the Player under her valid passport and was responsible for the integrity of the information contained therein. Secondly, in any case, the correct or incorrect alignment of the Player during the Matches is irrelevant because the conduct to be sanctioned is the deliberate registration of the same player under different identities, regardless of her correct or incorrect participation during the Matches.

c) The applicable sanctions to the FEGUIFUT’s conduct

71. In determination of the sanction, the Panel shall take into account that the CAF has the

responsibility – and the duty – to fight against the practices and cultural habits in Africa with regards to the registration of players under different identities and wrong information.

72. In this sense, the CAF strongly believes that the violation committed by the FEGUIFUT should be framed as “fraud” as provided in Article 43 of the Competition Regulations. Thus, the sanction provided in Article 44 of the Competition Regulations for this kind of cases shall apply:

“the convicted national association will be suspended from participation in the following two editions of the Women Africa Cup of Nations” (in our case, WAFCON 2018 and 2020).

73. Moreover, and with the intention not to allow the participation of the FEGUIFUT in the 2016 WAFCON, the CAF further relied on Article 40.13 of the Competition Regulations which provides that “[f]or any deliberate intention to defraud by falsifying official documents, the concerned association shall be suspended in accordance with the present regulations and the CAF disciplinary code”. In turn, Article 88 of the CAF Disciplinary Code provides the “exclusion” as a sanction for legal persons (defined as “the deprivation of the right of national associations and/or clubs from taking part in a current and/or future competition” in Article 104 of the CAF Disciplinary Code).

74. For this reason, the CAF decided to combine the sanctions, i.e. the exclusion from the Competition and the suspension from participating in the WAFCON 2018 and 2020. Needless to say that the combination of sanctions is possible according to Article 107 of the CAF Disciplinary Code which reads that “the sanctions provided for in the general and special parts of this code may be combined”.

75. For all the aforementioned, the Panel shall confirm the Appealed Decision.

IV.3. The Second Respondent

76. As it has been stated in section III of this Award, the FMF did not file any written submission or any communication before the CAS Court Office and did not attend the hearing.