The case revolves around a dispute between SC Langnau and the Swiss Ice Hockey League (LSHG) concerning a referee's technical error during a playoff match on February 23, 1993. The match between SC Langnau and HC Thurgau ended 4-4 in regulation time, leading to overtime. Before overtime began, the referee incorrectly ordered the teams to switch sides, placing them in positions they occupied during the second period, contrary to playoff regulations. SC Langnau's captain protested the decision, but the referee admitted he lacked access to the playoff rules during the match and only reviewed them afterward. SC Langnau filed a formal protest, which was rejected by the LSHG Disciplinary Committee, acknowledging the error but deeming it inconsequential to the match outcome. The LSHG Appeals Chamber also dismissed the appeal, citing discrepancies between the French and German versions of the regulations and arguing the referee's decision did not constitute a technical error. The LSHG later amended the rules to clarify team positioning during overtime, aligning with the German version.
SC Langnau escalated the matter to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking CHF 50,000 in damages for lost revenue from a potential additional match and requesting priority promotion to the National League B if a spot opened. The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction, as both parties agreed to arbitration under LSHG statutes. The legal dispute centered on whether the referee's decision violated binding regulations, constituting a breach of contract or an unlawful act under Swiss law. SC Langnau argued the LSHG was contractually liable for failing to enforce its own rules, while the LSHG maintained the referee acted within his discretion and subsequent appeals did not constitute wrongdoing.
The CAS ruled that the referee's decision violated clear playoff regulations, designed to ensure fair competition. It rejected the LSHG's argument that the French version of the rules was incomplete, emphasizing the need for uniform application of regulations to protect participants' sporting and economic interests. However, the CAS found no evidence the error directly influenced the match outcome, denying SC Langnau's claim for damages. The decision highlighted the importance of strict adherence to unambiguous rules in sports governance to maintain fairness and integrity.
In a subsequent ruling, the CAS addressed SC Langnau's claim for damages, finding the LSHG negligent for failing to uniformly apply its rules and refusing to order a replay. The CAS established a causal link between the LSHG's negligence and SC Langnau's missed opportunity for an additional match. While SC Langnau claimed CHF 50,000 in damages, the CAS adjusted the amount to CHF 30,000 due to insufficient evidence of net losses after deducting player bonuses and operational costs. The CAS dismissed any fault by SC Langnau, noting the coach's limited role in ensuring referee compliance and his unawareness of the referees' lack of access to the rules. The CAS emphasized that referees must strictly adhere to unambiguous rules, as deviations undermine fair competition. The ruling partially upheld SC Langnau's claim, ordering the LSHG to pay CHF 30,000 in damages, and declined to address the secondary request regarding team replacement in the league. The case underscores the critical importance of consistent rule enforcement to maintain fairness and integrity in sports competitions.