CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2023/A/10081 — Abdelilah Ibrahimi Idrissi v. Fédération Royale Marocaine de Football

"Ibrahimi Idrissi" · CAS reduced a 2-year ban and MAD 100,000 fine to a 12-match suspension and MAD 20,000 fine after finding the FRMF Ethics Committee applied the wrong ruleset.

What happened in Ibrahimi Idrissi

Abdelilah Ibrahimi Idrissi, Spokesman and Media Coordinator of Raja Casablanca, approached player Zakaria Habti on the athletic track after Habti was sent off in the 95th minute of a Moroccan League match on 3 September 2023. The two exchanged insults; the Appellant attempted to grab the Player's arm, and ultimately spat at him twice. The FRMF Ethics Committee sanctioned the Appellant with a 2-year ban and a fine of MAD 100,000, applying the FIFA Code of Ethics. The FRMF Central Appeal Committee upheld that decision on 5 October 2023. The Appellant appealed to CAS, arguing the FRMF Disciplinary Committee — not the Ethics Committee — had jurisdiction, that the FIFA Code of Ethics was inapplicable, that no sanctionable offence occurred, and that the sanction was disproportionate. The Sole Arbitrator held that the Ethics Committee had co-ordinate jurisdiction alongside the Disciplinary Committee, but that the FIFA Code of Ethics was inapplicable because the FRMF Disciplinary Code already expressly covered spitting (Article 85(1)(e)). The incident was found to have occurred during the match, albeit off the pitch. The appeal was partially upheld: the sanction was replaced with a 12-match suspension and a fine of MAD 20,000 as prescribed by the Annexe to the FRMF Disciplinary Code. The case matters because it enforces the subsidiarity of the FIFA Code of Ethics and the nulla poena sine lege principle in national federation disciplinary proceedings.

Procedural history of CAS 2023/A/10081

On 3 September 2023, an incident occurred between the Appellant and player Zakaria Habti following a Moroccan League match. The FRMF Ethics Committee held a hearing and on 5 September 2023 issued Decision No. 01 in file No. 08/23-24, imposing a 2-year ban from all football-related activities and a fine of MAD 100,000 on the Appellant. The Appellant appealed to the FRMF Central Appeal Committee, which on 5 October 2023 upheld the Ethics Committee's decision in full (the 'Appealed Decision'). On 26 October 2023, the Appellant filed his Statement of Appeal with CAS, requesting a sole arbitrator. Two requests for provisional measures were filed and both dismissed — the first by the Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division on 15 February 2024, and the second by the Sole Arbitrator on 12 September 2024. A hearing was held by videoconference on 7 November 2024. CAS was asked to annul the Appealed Decision or, alternatively, reduce the sanction.

Key holdings in CAS 2023/A/10081

• The FRMF Ethics Committee and the FRMF Disciplinary Committee hold co-ordinate jurisdiction over misconduct by officials and players, and the Ethics Committee was competent to adjudicate the incident.
• The FIFA Code of Ethics is inapplicable where the FRMF Disciplinary Code already expressly lists the offence in question (spitting, Article 85(1)(e)) and provides for applicable sanctions, because Article 1 of the FIFA Code of Ethics limits its scope to conduct not specifically provided for by other regulations.
• The incident on the athletic track during an ongoing match falls within the scope of the FRMF Disciplinary Code, not the FIFA Code of Ethics, as it occurred in the general context of the football match even though it took place off the pitch.
• The Appellant's act of spitting constitutes a sanctionable offence under Article 85(1)(e) of the FRMF Disciplinary Code, confirmed by the Appellant's own admission before the FRMF Ethics Committee and by video evidence.
• The correct sanction for an official who spits under the Annexe to the FRMF Disciplinary Code is a fixed 12-match suspension and a fine of MAD 20,000, and the 2-year ban and MAD 100,000 fine imposed under the FIFA Code of Ethics exceeded that prescribed scale.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first examined the FRMF's jurisdictional framework. Articles 3 and 4 of the FRMF Disciplinary Code list the Ethics Committee, Disciplinary Committee and Appeals Committee as co-ordinate disciplinary bodies, with no rule expressly conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Disciplinary Committee for off-pitch incidents. The Arbitrator therefore found co-ordinate jurisdiction and upheld the Ethics Committee's competence. On the applicable rules, the Arbitrator focused on Article 1 of the FIFA Code of Ethics, which limits its application to conduct 'other than those specifically provided by other regulations and connected to the field of play.' Because Article 85(1)(e) of the FRMF Disciplinary Code expressly covers spitting and provides a sanction scale, the FIFA Code of Ethics was displaced. The Arbitrator rejected the Respondent's argument that the off-pitch location triggered the FIFA Code, finding instead that the incident was directly connected to the red card and occurred during an ongoing match. On the facts, the Arbitrator relied on video evidence and the Appellant's own admission to the Ethics Committee to confirm spitting occurred. On proportionality, the Arbitrator applied the nulla poena sine lege principle and CAS jurisprudence requiring sanctions to be clearly pre-defined, finding the Annexe to the FRMF Disciplinary Code mandated a fixed 12-match suspension and MAD 20,000 fine for officials, with no room for reduction. No mitigating circumstances were found because the Appellant had provoked the entire incident.

Why Ibrahimi Idrissi matters in CAS jurisprudence

The award reinforces the subsidiarity principle embedded in Article 1 of the FIFA Code of Ethics: national federations may not resort to the FIFA Code where their own disciplinary code already expressly covers the offence and prescribes a sanction. It also confirms that CAS will apply the nulla poena sine lege principle to override sanctions that exceed a federation's own prescribed scale, even when the federation's ethics body — rather than its disciplinary body — adjudicated the matter under a co-ordinate jurisdiction framework.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2019/A/6330 CAS 2022/A/8592 CAS 2015/A/3975 CAS 2009/A/1817 & 1844 CAS 2016/A/4501 CAS 2019/A/6667

Frequently asked questions about Ibrahimi Idrissi

Why did CAS reduce the Ibrahimi Idrissi ban from 2 years to 12 matches?

The Sole Arbitrator found that the FRMF Ethics Committee wrongly applied the FIFA Code of Ethics instead of the FRMF Disciplinary Code. Article 85(1)(e) and Annexe 1 of the FRMF Disciplinary Code expressly prescribe a fixed 12-match suspension and a fine of MAD 20,000 for an official who spits, so the 2-year ban and MAD 100,000 fine exceeded the lawfully prescribed scale.

When does the FIFA Code of Ethics apply to incidents at national federation level?

According to Article 1 of the FIFA Code of Ethics, it applies only to conduct 'other than those specifically provided by other regulations and connected to the field of play.' In Ibrahimi Idrissi, CAS held that because the FRMF Disciplinary Code already listed spitting as an offence with a defined sanction, the FIFA Code of Ethics was displaced and could not be used as the regulatory basis for the sanction.

Did the FRMF Ethics Committee have jurisdiction over an off-pitch incident in the Ibrahimi Idrissi case?

Yes. The Sole Arbitrator found that Articles 3 and 4 of the FRMF Disciplinary Code establish co-ordinate jurisdiction between the Ethics Committee and the Disciplinary Committee, with no rule expressly conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Disciplinary Committee for off-pitch incidents. The Ethics Committee was therefore competent, even though the incident occurred on the athletic track rather than on the pitch.

Did Ibrahimi Idrissi successfully argue he did not spit at the player?

No. The Sole Arbitrator rejected this argument, noting that the Appellant had himself admitted before the FRMF Ethics Committee that he spat at the player as a reaction to the player's insults. Video evidence reviewed by the Arbitrator also confirmed the act, and the Appellant's own conduct — approaching and insulting the player first — was found to have provoked the entire incident.

Topics: Doping, ethics & governance at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.