Hani Zahran, lawyer for Abdullah Al-Saeed, a Pyramids player, expressed his happiness with his client at the issuance of the Supreme Constitutional Court ruling invalidating the Regulations of the Settlement and Arbitration Center.
Zahran said in exclusive statements to FilGoal.com: “The ruling is the title of the truth, and therefore the decision that Al-Ahly obtained from the Settlement and Arbitration Center, and according to which it resorted to a civil court in order to seize Al-Saeed’s assets, became invalid.”
“We will take measures to lift the seizure of balances and end this situation,” he added.
He explained, “We are already in the final stages of this step, and our position will be strengthened by the ruling of the Supreme Constitutional Court, which made what was issued by the Center for Settlement and Arbitration equal and nothing.”
Zahran continued, “But we are continuing to sue Al-Ahly before the International Sports Court in order to obtain financial compensation for Al-Saeed, which we had already requested before her, and now we will present her with the Supreme Constitutional Court ruling.”
And he continued, “We will adjust the number required by financial compensation for the damages caused to my client as a result of the seizure of his funds, and we will not forgive the amount we want from Al-Ahly, because the issue is being considered before the international courts.”
The Supreme Constitutional Court had ruled that it was unconstitutional to authorize the Board of Directors of the Olympic Committee to issue the bylaws of the Center for Settlement and Sports Arbitration.
In the same context, the Swiss Federal Court rejected Al-Ahly Club’s appeal that the Sports Court “Cass” had no jurisdiction over the case of Abdullah Al-Saeed, the Pyramids player, on the fourth of last January.
Abdullah Al-Saeed had filed a complaint before the Sports Court against the decision to fine him and seize his property in favor of Al-Ahly, which was issued by the Sports Settlement and Arbitration Center.
The player demanded the cancellation of the previous ruling by fining him $ 2 million and freezing his assets, which was issued on the grounds that he violated the terms of the contract.