The case revolves around a dispute between HC Y, a Swiss ice hockey club, and the Swiss Ice Hockey Federation (LSHG) concerning decisions made during the 1995 season about the organization of the Swiss ice hockey championship. The LSHG's National League (LN) initially decided to eliminate relegation from the National League B (LNB) to the First League for the 1995-96 season, a decision later modified due to financial complications arising from the termination of a broadcasting contract with the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation (SSR). HC Y challenged these decisions, arguing they violated the LSHG's statutes and caused financial harm by reducing sponsor and public interest. The case was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which examined its jurisdiction under Swiss civil law and the LSHG's statutes. The CAS determined it had jurisdiction, as the dispute was a civil matter between a member club and the federation, with no prior conciliation or appeal options available. The tribunal also considered whether it could rule on actions based on Article 75 of the Swiss Civil Code, which allows members to challenge association decisions within a month of becoming aware of them.
The dispute centered on decisions made by the LSHG delegates' assembly and the LN extraordinary general assembly, which amended regulations regarding relegation and promotion. HC Y argued these decisions violated statutory and legal provisions, as they were not properly filed by the statutory deadline and deviated from established rules. The CAS analyzed whether these decisions fell within the competence of the respective assemblies and whether they complied with statutory requirements. It noted that the LSHG delegates' assembly is the supreme body of the association, and its decisions are final unless legally challenged. The LN assembly, as a legislative body of the LSHG, had authority over certain league matters, though the exact division of competences between the two assemblies regarding relegation and promotion rules was unclear.
The CAS found the appeal admissible, as it was filed within the one-month deadline stipulated by Article 75 of the Swiss Civil Code. HC Y had not consented to the disputed decisions and demonstrated potential statutory violations. The tribunal emphasized its role in ensuring decisions complied with legal and statutory requirements, upholding fairness and procedural regularity. It dismissed HC Y's claim that the proposals were not filed by the statutory deadline, noting that members were adequately informed and had sufficient time to review the proposals before the assemblies. The tribunal also addressed HC Y's argument that the decisions violated Article 10.33 of the game regulations, which required changes to take effect in the following season. While the LN assembly's decisions were approved by a qualified majority for immediate effect, the delegates' assembly's approval of the proposal implicitly derogated from Article 10.33, as the changes were clearly intended for the 1995-96 season.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld the validity of the contested decisions, concluding that the statutory amendment procedure was followed and the overwhelming majority approval remedied any procedural oversight. The tribunal noted that the LSHG leadership should have clarified the derogation during the vote but found this did not invalidate the decisions. The case highlights the complexities of sports governance, contractual obligations, and legal recourse within federations, underscoring the importance of clear statutory frameworks and fair procedural practices. The CAS rejected HC Y's appeal and confirmed the decisions' validity, ensuring compliance with Swiss law and arbitration principles.