The case revolves around a dispute between the German table tennis club TTF Liebherr Ochsenhausen and the European Table Tennis Union (ETTU) concerning disciplinary sanctions and the interpretation of competition rules during the 2006/2007 Men's European Champions League (ECL). The Appellant, TTF Liebherr Ochsenhausen, reached the quarter-finals of the ECL, where they faced Royal Villette Charleroi (Charleroi), which advanced to the semi-finals and won the tournament. It was later discovered that one of Charleroi’s players, Ching Li, competed for another club in the Chinese Super League after the ECL concluded but before the end of the playing season as defined by ETTU regulations. The ETTU fined Charleroi €5,000 for violating article G.15.6 of the ECL Regulations, which prohibits players from competing for different organizations under ETTU jurisdiction in the same playing season. The Appellant and other German clubs protested, arguing for harsher penalties, including match forfeitures and advancement to the semi-finals. The ETTU dismissed these protests, and the Appellant was denied participation in the 2007/2008 ECL due to a rule limiting each association to four clubs, which had already been filled by other German teams.
The Appellant appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking to overturn the ETTU’s decisions and secure participation in the 2007/2008 ECL. The CAS panel addressed key legal principles, affirming that a club affected by an incomplete sanction against another club has standing to appeal. It emphasized interpreting association rules based on literal wording, context, purpose, and history. The panel defined the "playing season" as the period between the first and last match of a championship, questioning the justification for post-competition blocking periods that might infringe on athletes' labor mobility rights. It also stressed that sanctions must be predictable and legally grounded, requiring a clear link between the violation and the penalty.
The Respondent, ETTU, argued that the word "will" in article G.15.6 allowed discretion in sanctions and distinguished the case from prior precedents, as the player’s violation occurred after the ECL season ended. The ETTU highlighted practical challenges, such as TV and sponsorship agreements, that would arise from accommodating an additional team in the 2007/2008 ECL, which violated the four-team-per-association rule. The CAS ultimately dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Respondent had discretion in applying sanctions and that the Appellant’s exclusion was justified under regulatory and practical constraints. The decision underscored the importance of proportionality and context in enforcing rules, rejecting the Appellant’s claims.
The CAS also criticized the ETTU for not complying with provisional measures, which could have mitigated the case’s burdensome consequences. It emphasized the need for cooperation and voluntary compliance in sports dispute resolution to maintain the system’s integrity. The ruling dismissed all other relief requests and upheld the ETTU Board of Appeal’s decision, reinforcing the stability and fairness of the competition structure. The case highlights the complexities of interpreting and enforcing sports regulations while balancing competitive integrity with athletes' rights. The CAS’s decision serves as a reminder of the importance of clear, predictable rules and compliance with procedural orders in sports governance.