TAS - CAS 2025-A-11581

Palais de Beaulieu Avenue Bergières 10 CH-1004 Lausanne Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 www.tas-cas.org CAS 2025/A/11581 Enes Usta v. Football Federation of Macedonia (FFM) ARBITRAL AWARD delivered by the

COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

sitting in the following composition:

President: Mr Kepa Larumbe, Attorney-at-law in Madrid, Spain

Arbitrators: Mr Giulio Palermo, Attorney-at-law in Geneva, Switzerland

Mr Bernhard Welten, Attorney-at-law in Bern, Switzerland

in the arbitration between

Mr Enes Usta, Turkey

Represented by Toni Nogolica, Attorney-at-law in Zagreb, Croatia

-Appellantand

Football Federation of Macedonia, Skopje, North Macedonia

Represented by Mr Rocco Taminelli, Attorney-at-law in Bellinzona, Switzerland

• Respondent-CAS 2025/A/11581 – Page 2

I. PARTIES

1. Mr Enes Usta (the “Appellant”) of Turkish nationality is the owner and President of FC Gostivar, a North Macedonian football club based in Gostivar, North Macedonia. The Appellant is also the owner and President of FC Santa Lucia, a football club based in Malta, where he currently resides. FC Gostivar is affiliated with the Football Association of the Municipality of Gostivar, which in turn is affiliated with the Football

Federation of Macedonia.

2. The Football Federation of Macedonia (the “Respondent” or the “FFM”) is the football governing body in Macedonia , which in turn is affiliated with the Fédération

Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”).

3. The Appellant and the Respondent are jointly referred to as the “Parties”.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Background Facts

governing body in Macedonia , which in turn is affiliated with the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”).

3. The Appellant and the Respondent are jointly referred to as the “Parties”.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Background Facts

4. Below is a summary of the relevant facts and allegations based on the Parties ’ written submissions, pleadings and evidence adduced at the hearing. Additional facts and allegations found in the Parties ’ written submissions, pleadings and evidence may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the legal discussion that follows. While the Panel has considered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments and evidence submitted by the Parties in the present proceedings, this Award refers only to the submissions and evidence it considered necessary to explain its reasoning.

5. During the 2024/2025 season, FC Gostivar (the “Club”) was affiliated with the FFM.

The first team of the Club participated in the top tier category, i.e., in the First Macedonian Football League, organised by the FFM.

6. On 27 April 2025, the match between FC Gostivar and FK Rabotnichki AD was played as part of the 29th round of the First Macedonian Football League at the Boris Trajkovski stadium (the “Match”) - which is not the main stadium of the Club -, and it was played without spectators following the unilateral decision of the Club.

7. In the 85th minute of the Match, with a result of 1 -2 in favour of FK Rabotnichki AD, the players of FC Gostivar abandoned the field of play and did not return. The referee’s report of the Match reads as follows: “Note and signature of the referee: The match was organised according to the rules and regulations of the Football Federation of Macedonia (FFM). In the 85th minute, following instructions from the club management, the captain of the home team, together with the coaching staff, withdrew the team to the dressing room. After waiting

“Note and signature of the referee: The match was organised according to the rules and regulations of the Football Federation of Macedonia (FFM). In the 85th minute, following instructions from the club management, the captain of the home team, together with the coaching staff, withdrew the team to the dressing room. After waiting for 15 minutes, the refereeing team and the match delegate left the pitch. Additionally, we would like to state that upon arriving at the stadium before the match, we were informed by an individual wearing an official accreditation that if the home team lost the match, they would leave the pitch”.CAS 2025/A/11581 – Page 3

8. After the Match (date not specified in the document), the referee team issued an additional report that reads as follows: “On 27 April 2025, a league match was played between the teams KFG Gostivar and FK Rabotnichki, as part of Round 29 of the Macedonian First Football League

("PMFL").

The match took place in the Madzhari neighbourhood, at the Boris Trajkovski Stadium, with kickoff at 16:00. The match was interrupted in the 85th minute, following the scoring of the second goal by the away team, at which point the score was 1-2. In the 76th minute, player number 9, Ervin Lee Harry (270311) from the home team KFG Gostivar was sent off due to rough play. Additionally, we would like to state that upon arrival at the stadium before the match, a person wearing an accreditation badge from the home club informed us that if they were to lose the match, they would leave the field of play. In a pre-match conversation, the fourth official, Stojanche Trpchevski, told us, before we entered the pitch to start the match, that a club official wearing a badge had told him that if their team lost the match, they would leave the field. The match dele gate, Kocho Zerdeski from Kichevo, was also made aware of this. Likewise, the match

we entered the pitch to start the match, that a club official wearing a badge had told him that if their team lost the match, they would leave the field. The match dele gate, Kocho Zerdeski from Kichevo, was also made aware of this. Likewise, the match referee observer Nikola Karakolev from Shtip, as well as all other match officials, were informed of this incident”.

9. The match delegate’s report (“Match Delegate Report”), issued on 28 April 2025, reads

as follows (excerpt): “(…). Presence of stewards or members of a private security agency: Yes, 10 people Comment: None Assessment of safety and security organisation (home team): Good

Comment: None

(…)

Were there any remarks or reports submitted by the referees or the observer? NoCAS 2025/A/11581 – Page 4

Comment: The fourth official informed me that upon arrival at the stadium, they were told by an accredited individual that if the home team were losing, they would leave the match. (…) Behaviour of the players and officials of the home club before, during and after the

match: Good Comment: The representatives of the home team maintained a correct and respectful attitude throughout the match. (…) Additional remarks: The match did not reach its conclusion. Although it was played in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Football Federation of Macedonia (FFM), in the 85th minute, after conceding a goal, the club president - who is also the club ownerinstructed the team captain, Alper Potuk, to withdraw the team from the pitch. The home team, FK Gostivar AD, then left the field and all players entered the dressing room. The referees, the away team, and I as the delegate waited for 15 minutes for the home team to return to the field, but that did not happen. I then requested the police officials to secure the area in front of the dressing rooms. With no incidents, the

room. The referees, the away team, and I as the delegate waited for 15 minutes for the home team to return to the field, but that did not happen. I then requested the police officials to secure the area in front of the dressing rooms. With no incidents, the refereeing team, the away team, and I safely exited the pitch. I would like to highlight that the club representative Almir Dauti and the Head Coach Blazho Panov tried to convince the players to resume the match, but the players followed the instructions of the club owner and complied with his decision to withdraw the team from the match”.

10. The Club failed to appear for the next two matches of the First Macedonian Football

League (rounds 30 and 31). As a result, the Disciplinary Commission of the FFM (“DC FFM”) imposed disciplinary sanctions on the Club, consisting, inter alia , of the disqualification from the competition and relegation to the lowest level of the competition. The Bulletin Nº 31 of 8 May 2025 of the FFM read, inter alia, as follows: “1.3 Pursuant to Article 82, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the FFM Competition Regulations, and in accordance with the Delegate’s and Referee’s reports from the Round 31 match of the First MFL between FK Sileks AD - Kratovo and KFG Gostivar AD - Gostivar, scheduled for 7 May, 2025 at Sileks Stadium - Kratovo, due to the unjustified failure of KFG Gostivar AD - Gostivar to appear for two (2) official championship matches within the regular compet ition system, the club is disqualified from f urther participation in the competition.CAS 2025/A/11581 – Page 5 1.4 As a result of the disqualification, KFG Gostivar AD - Gostivar shall be relegated to the lowest level of competition in the following competitive season, depending on the number of tiers in the relevant competition system”.

11. During the 2025/2026 season, FC Gostivar did not participate in any football

to the lowest level of competition in the following competitive season, depending on the number of tiers in the relevant competition system”.

11. During the 2025/2026 season, FC Gostivar did not participate in any football competition organized by the FFM or the Football Association of the Municipality of Gostivar, following the Club ’s unilateral decision not to apply for the necessary license/registration to enter the competitions.

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF MACEDONIA

12. On 28 April 2025 , the DC FFM , acting ex officio , opened disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant for organising and/or inciting (direct involvement) the players of FC Gostivar to abandon the field, thereby causing the abandonment of the match played within the 29th round of the league championship between FC Gostivar and FK Rabotnichki AD at the Boris Trajkovski Stadium.

13. On 30 April 2025, the Appellant filed his submissions before the DC FFM.

14. On 2 May 2025, the DC FFM decided as follows: “1. To Enes Usta, owner of K.F.G. Gostivar AD, for organising namely inciting (as direct participants) the players of the team K.F.G. Gostivar AD to leave the football pitch, thereby causing an interruption of the match played as part of Round 29 of the First MFL, held on 27.04.2025 between K.F.G. Gostivar AD and FK Rabotnichki AD at the Boris Trajkovski Stadium in Madzari, a disciplinary sanction is imposed, a ban on performing any function for a duration of 2 (two) years.

2. A monetary fine in the amount of 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros), payable in the denar equivalent at exchange rate on the day of payment.

3. Enes Usta is obliged, upon the finality of this decision, to pay the monetary fine referred to in paragraph 1 to the bank account of the FFM 200002504222317 at

in the denar equivalent at exchange rate on the day of payment.

3. Enes Usta is obliged, upon the finality of this decision, to pay the monetary fine referred to in paragraph 1 to the bank account of the FFM 200002504222317 at

Stopanska Banka AD Skopje.

4. The sanction is effective as of 28.04.2025.

5. This decision shall be published in MAKFUDBAL”.

15. The grounds of the decision of the DC FFM determined as follows: “The Disciplinary Committee, acting upon the report submitted by the Competition Commission on 28.04.2025, against Enes Usta, owner of K.F.G. Gostivar AD, for organising namely inciting (as direct participants) the players of the team K.F.G.

Gostivar AD to leave the football pitch, thereby causing an interruption of the match played as part of Round 29 of the First MFL, held on 27.04.2025 , between K.F.G. Gostivar AD and FK Rabotnichki AD at the Boris Trajkovski Stadium in Madzari,CAS 2025/A/11581 – Page 6 reviewed the evidence submitted by the reporting party, namely: the official match report, the additional delegate’s report, the statement of the main referee, and the statement of the club owner of K.F.G. Gostivar, based on which the Committee determined the following facts: On 27.04.2025, a match was played within the framework of Round 29 of the First MFL between K.F.G. Gostivar AD and FK Rabotnichki AD at the Boris Trajkovski Stadium in Madzari. During the match, in the 85th minute, the owner of the clu b GFK Gostivar, Enes Usta, gave an instruction to the head coach Blazho Panov and the team captain Alper Potuk to withdraw from the pitch and to terminate the match along with the rest of the team. Following this, the

85th minute, the owner of the clu b GFK Gostivar, Enes Usta, gave an instruction to the head coach Blazho Panov and the team captain Alper Potuk to withdraw from the pitch and to terminate the match along with the rest of the team. Following this, the team of K.F.G. Gostivar AD left the pi tch and returned to the dressing room. After a 15-minute waiting period by the home team, the match referee, and the match delegate, the home team representative, Almir Dauti, informed the match delegate and the head referee that GFK Gostivar AD would not continue the match. Based on the established facts, and taking into account all relevant circumstances, the Committee finds that with such unsportsmanlike conduct, the club owner of GFK Gostivar AD, Enes Usta, committed a violation as defined in Article 72, in conjunction with Article 78 of the Disciplinary Regulations of the FFM, upon which the decision was made as stated in the operative part”.

16. On 6 May 2025, the Club, on behalf of the Appellant, appealed against the decision of

the DC FFM before the Appeals Commission of the FFM (the “AC FFM”).

17. On 12 May 2025 , the AC FFM issued the decision nº 10 -1275/4 (the “Appealed Decision”) rejecting the appeal filed by the Appellant . The operative part of the Appealed Decision read as follows: “1. The appeal no. 10-1258/1 dated 09.05.2025, submitted by K.F.G. Gostivar AD, in reference to the owner Enes Usta is hereby rejected as unfounded.

2. The decision of the Disciplinary Commission of the FFM No. 0801 -1206/4 dated 02.05.2025 is confirmed, by which Enes Usta, owner of K.F.G. Gostivar AD, is sanctioned for organizing or calling upon (as direct participants) the players of the

2. The decision of the Disciplinary Commission of the FFM No. 0801 -1206/4 dated 02.05.2025 is confirmed, by which Enes Usta, owner of K.F.G. Gostivar AD, is sanctioned for organizing or calling upon (as direct participants) the players of the K.F.G. Gostivar AD team to leave the field, thereby causing an interruption of the match played within the 29th round of the First MFL on 27.04.2025 between K.F.G.

Gostivar AD - FK Rabotnichki AD at the Boris Trajkovski Stadium in Madzari. A disciplinary measure IS IMPOSED: a ban from performing any function for a period of 2 (two) years.

3. A fine in the amount of 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros) in denar equivalent at the exchange rate on the day of payment.

3. The Decision is final.

4. The Decision shall be published in Makfudbal”.

18. The grounds of the Appealed Decision determined, inter alia, as follows:CAS 2025/A/11581 – Page 7 “In the appeal statement, the appellant contests the type and severity of the sanction imposed by the first-instance body, arguing that it is excessive due to an incorrect and incomplete determination of the facts by the committee, thereby violating the provisions of the Disciplinary Regulations. The appellant requests that the sanction be reduced.

In reaching its decision, the Committee reviewed the evidence suggested by the complainant, including: the official match report, the additional delegate’s report, the statement from the head referee of the match, and the Statement from the owner of the club GFK Gostivar, upon which it established the following facts: During the match, in the 85th minute, the owner of the club GFK Gostivar, Enes Usta, gave an instruction to the head coach Blazho Panov and the team captain Alper Potuk to withdraw from the pitch and to terminate the match along with the rest of the team.

During the match, in the 85th minute, the owner of the club GFK Gostivar, Enes Usta, gave an instruction to the head coach Blazho Panov and the team captain Alper Potuk to withdraw from the pitch and to terminate the match along with the rest of the team. Following this, the team of K.F.G. Gostivar AD left the pitch and returned to the dressing room. After a 15-minute waiting period by the home team, the match referee, and the match delegate, the home team representative, Almir Dauti, informed the match delegate and the head referee that GFK Gostivar AD would not continue the match. Based on the established facts, and taking into account all relevant circumstances, the Committee finds that with such unsportsmanlike conduct, the club owner of GFK Gostivar AD, Enes Usta, committed a violation as defined in Article 72, in conjunction with Article 78 of the Disciplinary Regulations of the FFM, upon which the decision was made as stated in the operative part. After reviewing the grounds of the appeal and the material evidence, the Committee established the following facts: The Commission determined that the first -instance body, in rendering its decision, correctly and fully established the factual situation, that is, it took into consideration all relevant evidence or properly evaluated the evidence presented to it. Therefore, in accordance with Article 72 in conjunction with Article 78 of the Disciplinary Code of the FFM, it correctly assessed the severity of the sanction”.

IV. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

19. On 1 July 2025, in accordance with Article R47 and Article R48 of the Code of Sportsrelated Arbitration (edition 2025) (“CAS Code”), the Appellant filed his Statement of Appeal with the CAS against the Respondent challenging the Appealed Decision .

Furthermore, the Statement of Appeal was also directed against the decision nº 101275/3 issued by the AC FFM against the Club on 12 May 2025.

Appeal with the CAS against the Respondent challenging the Appealed Decision . Furthermore, the Statement of Appeal was also directed against the decision nº 101275/3 issued by the AC FFM against the Club on 12 May 2025.

20. In his Statement of Appeal, the Appellant requested that the Appeal was submitted to a Sole Arbitrator and nominated Ms Petra Pocrnic Perica and requested provisional measures consisting of an Order to stay the execution of the Appealed Decision.

21. On 3 July 2025 , the CAS Court Office informed the Appellant that since the Appea l was directed against t wo different decisions, each appeal would be treated separately,CAS 2025/A/11581 – Page 8 resulting in the opening of two separate proceedings (CAS 2025/A/ 11562 and CAS 2025/A/11581), subject to Article R50(3) of the CAS Code, that states as follows: “When two or more cases clearly involve the same issues, the President of the Appeals Arbitration Division may invite the parties to agree to refer these cases to the same Panel; failing any agreement between the parties, the President of the Division shal l decide”.

22. On 11 July 2025, the Appellant filed his Appeal Brief in accordance with Article R51 of the CAS Code.

23. On 16 July 2025, the CAS Court Office notified the Statement of Appeal and the Appeal Brief to the Respondent.

24. On 21 July 2025, the Respondent nominated Mr Bernhard Welten, Attorney -at-Law in Bern, Switzerland, to serve as arbitrator and agreed that the present proceedings and the procedure CAS 2025/A/11562 were submitted to the same Panel.

25. On 25 July 2025 , the Appellant agreed that the present proceedings and CAS 2025/A/11562 proceedings were submitted to the same Panel.

26. On 28 July 2025 , the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that the present proceedings and the CAS 2025/A/11562 proceedings shall be submitted to the same

Panel.

2025/A/11562 proceedings were submitted to the same Panel.

26. On 28 July 2025 , the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that the present proceedings and the CAS 2025/A/11562 proceedings shall be submitted to the same

Panel.

27. On 13 August 2025 , the Respondent objected against the provisional measures requested by the Appellant.

28. On 15 August 2025, the Appellant informed the CAS Court Office, inter alia, that the request for provisional measures was related only to the Appealed Decision issued by the AC FFM on 12 May 2025, i.e., to the present procedure CAS 2025/A/11581.

29. Also on 15 August 2025, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that an Order on Request for a Stay would be issued in procedure CAS 2025/A/11581.

30. On 21 August 2025, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that the nomination of Ms Petra Pocrnic Perica as arbitrator was invalid as she is only on the Anti -Doping Division (ADD) list o f arbitrators of the CAS and invited the Appellant to nominate another arbitrator.

31. On 22 August 2025, the President of the Appeals Arbitration Division issued an Order rejecting the Application for Stay requested by the Appellant in his Statement of Appeal.

32. On 27 August 2025 , the Appellant nominated Mr Giulio Palermo , Attorney-at-law in Geneva, Switzerland, to serve as arbitrator.

33. On 24 September 2025, the CAS Court Office, on behalf of the Deputy Division President and further to Article R59 of the CAS Code, informed the Parties that the Panel appointed to decide the present dispute was constituted as follows:CAS 2025/A/11581 – Page 9

President: Mr Kepa Larumbe, Attorney-at-law in Madrid, Spain

Arbitrators: Mr Giulio Palermo, Attorney-at-law in Geneva, Switzerland

Mr Bernhard Welten, Attorney-at-law in Bern, Switzerland.

President: Mr Kepa Larumbe, Attorney-at-law in Madrid, Spain

Arbitrators: Mr Giulio Palermo, Attorney-at-law in Geneva, Switzerland

Mr Bernhard Welten, Attorney-at-law in Bern, Switzerland.

34. On 1 October 2025, the Respondent filed its Answer, in accordance with Article R55 of

the CAS Code.

35. On 22 October 2025, a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) of the present case was held by video conference. In addition to the Panel and Ms Amelia Moore, CAS Counsel, the following persons attended the conference call: For the Appellant: Mr Toni Nogolica (legal counsel)

For the Respondent: Mr Rocco Taminelli (Legal counsel)

Ms Miriana Piccoli (Legal counsel)

36. On 22 October 2025, after the CMC, the CAS Court Office , on behalf of the Panel, informed the Parties of the next procedural steps: - In light of the Parties’ agreement, the full reasoned arbitral award would be notified to the Parties as soon as possible after the closing of the evidentiary proceedings (with no prior notification of solely the operative part of the award). - The Appellants were invited to submit, within 20 (twenty) days:

(i) a brief written submission and corresponding evidence limited to the alleged factual inaccuracies in the Respondent’s Answer (in this regard, the Parties were not authorised to submit new arguments); (ii) the witness statements of the witnesses among those identified in the Appeal Brief and the Answer, whom the Parties intended to have testify at the hearing along with a brief explanation of the relevance of their testimony for these proceedings in accordance with Article R51 of the CAS Code and Article 4(5) of the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration. - Upon receipt of the Appellants ’ submission, the Respondent w ould be granted the same time limit to submit the same/respond accordingly. - The hearing, further to Articles R44.2 and R57 of the CAS Code, that will be held on

the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration. - Upon receipt of the Appellants ’ submission, the Respondent w ould be granted the same time limit to submit the same/respond accordingly. - The hearing, further to Articles R44.2 and R57 of the CAS Code, that will be held on 29 January 2026 in person in Lausanne, Switzerland.

37. On 1 December 2025 , the Appellant filed his additional written submissions in accordance with Article R56 of the CAS Code.

38. On 2 January 2026 , the Respondent filed its additional written submissions in accordance with Article R56 of the CAS Code.CAS 2025/A/11581 – Page 10

39. On 17 and 19 January 2026, the Respondent and respectively the Appellant signed and returned the Order of Procedure to the CAS Court Office.

40. On 29 January 2026, the hearing of the present case was held in Lausanne, Switzerland. In addition to the Panel and M s Amelia Moore , CAS Counsel, the following persons attended the hearing: For the Appellant: Mr Toni Nogolica (Legal counsel)

Ms Tena Sabo (Legal counsel) Mr Enes Usta (Party-Witness) Mr Sanja Mrsik (Witness) Mr Rúben Frederico Coelho Santos Rosado da Cruz (Witness)

For the Respondent: Mr Rocco Taminelli (Legal counsel)

Ms Miriana Piccoli (Legal counsel) Ms Ruzica Nikolovska (Legal counsel) Mrs Natalia Bozhinovska (Legal counsel) Mr Igor Stojcevski (Witness) Mr Furkan Idrizi (Witness) Mr Martin Petkovski (Witness) Mr Zoran Nikolovski (Witness) Mr Filip Angelovski (Interpreter)

At the outset of the hearing, the Parties confirmed that they did not have any objection as to the composition of the Arbitration Panel. During the hearing, the Parties had the

Mr Martin Petkovski (Witness) Mr Zoran Nikolovski (Witness) Mr Filip Angelovski (Interpreter)

At the outset of the hearing, the Parties confirmed that they did not have any objection as to the composition of the Arbitration Panel. During the hearing, the Parties had the opportunity to present their case, to examine and cross examine the witnesses, to submit their arguments and their final pleadings.

41. At the end of the hearing the Parties expressly declared that they did not have any objections with respect to the procedure and that their right to be heard had been fully respected.

42. On 7 April 2026, the Appellant submitted a request for leave to produce new documentary evidence and to file a supplementary submission pursuant to Article R56 of the CAS Code. The evidence in question consisted of a publication on the Respondent’s official website (“FFM Publication”) disclosing correspondence received from the UEFA Integrity Department concerning suspected match irregularities in domestic Macedonian football during the 2024/2025 season (the “New Evidence”). The Appellant contended that said publication is directly rel evant to the Panel’s assessment of the Respondent’s conduct and the proportionality of the impugned sanctions, and that it constitutes exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article R56 of the CAS

Code.

43. On 9 April 2026, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the Appellant’s request and, on behalf of the Panel, invited the Respondent to provide its position regarding the admissibility thereof by 14 April 2026, noting that in the absence of comments o rCAS 2025/A/11581 – Page 11 agreement, it would be for the Panel to decide. The Respondent did not submit any observations within the prescribed time limit.

44. On 23 April 2026, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that in the absence of any objection from the Respondent, the Appellant’s request was granted and invited the Appellant to file a supplementary submission addressing the relevance and implications

observations within the prescribed time limit.

44. On 23 April 2026, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that in the absence of any objection from the Respondent, the Appellant’s request was granted and invited the Appellant to file a supplementary submission addressing the relevance and implications of such document in relation to the present dispute, no later than 28 April 2026. As a result, the time limit set forth in Article R56 of the CAS Code, according to which “the operative part of the award shall be communicated to the parties within a maximum of four months after the closing of the evidentiary proceedings by the Panel ”, was suspended.

45. On 23 April 2026, the Respondent submitted a letter claiming that the Respondent did not receive the CAS Court Office correspondence of 9 April 2026.

46. On 24 April 2026, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties, inter alia, of the following: “On behalf of the Panel, the Parties are informed as follows: The Panel takes note of the Respondent’s submission that they did not receive the CAS Court Office correspondence dated 9 April 2026. However, upon review of the records of the CAS Court Office, it has been confirmed that the correspondence in question was successfully delivered on 9 April 2026, at 13:52 CET (delivery receipts attached). The Panel is therefore satisfied that the Respondent were duly served. Accordingly, there are no grounds to re voke the deadline granted to the Appellants by way of the CAS Court Office correspondence dated 23 April 2026 to submit comments on the new documentary exhibits filed on 7 April 2026.

Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Respondent will be afforded the opportunity, in due course, to submit its position regarding both the admissibility and the substantive relevance of the new documentary exhibits”.

47. On 28 April 2026, the Appellant filed his submissions that, in essence, may be summarized as follows: - The Appellant filed a Supplementary Submission addressing the relevance of the

substantive relevance of the new documentary exhibits”.

47. On 28 April 2026, the Appellant filed his submissions that, in essence, may be summarized as follows: - The Appellant filed a Supplementary Submission addressing the relevance of the New Evidence, which disclosed UEFA Integrity Department correspondence concerning suspected betting irregularities in domestic Macedonian football during the 2024/2025 season. The Appellant advances two principal arguments: - First, the FFM Publication corroborates the legitimacy of concerns as regards Mr Usta’s integrity. The Appellant submits that at the very time the Respondent w