The case revolves around a dispute between the Federación Española de Bolos (FEB), the Fédération Internationale des Quilleurs (FIQ), and the Federació Catalana de Bitlles i Bowling (FCBB) concerning the admission of FCBB as a member of FIQ. The FEB, a long-standing member of FIQ since 1954, contested the FIQ General Assembly's unanimous decision on August 30, 2007, to admit FCBB, arguing it violated FIQ's statutes and Spanish law, which permits only one national federation per country to represent Spain in international sports federations. The FIQ, based in Colorado, USA, had a history of admitting members from territories not recognized by the UN, and its statutes granted broad discretion in membership decisions. The FIQ's Presidium recommended FCBB's admission, which the General Assembly approved. The FEB, absent from the General Assembly, later disputed the decision with the FIQ Presidium, which upheld the admission, citing its lack of authority to overturn the General Assembly's decision. The FEB then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking annulment of FCBB's membership, a stay of the decision, and compensation for legal costs.
The CAS ruling on April 23, 2008, addressed several key legal principles. It emphasized that membership in an international federation is governed by the federation's own rules, not the national laws of its members. The CAS affirmed that appeals against decisions of international sports bodies should primarily consider the law of the state where the federation is domiciled, unless general principles of sports law (Lex Sportiva) apply. It rejected the FEB's argument that Spanish law, which mandates a single national federation, constituted an overriding mandatory rule, as it lacked international legitimacy and a close connection to the dispute. The CAS upheld the autonomy of international federations in organizational matters, including the General Assembly's discretion in admitting new members. It also dismissed the FEB's claim of procedural defects in the FIQ Presidium's decision, noting that the parties had agreed to CAS arbitration with full review powers. The CAS concluded that the FEB failed to demonstrate any substantive error in the FIQ's decision, thereby rejecting its appeal and upholding FCBB's membership.
The FEB further argued that FIQ's statutes allowed only one organization per country unless no objections were raised by existing members, and it had explicitly objected to FCBB's admission. It also cited Spanish sports law, which grants exclusive authority to the Spanish Superior Sports Council to authorize international federation memberships, and referenced European Commission documents supporting a pyramidal sports organization model with one federation per country. The FIQ defended its decision, stating that FCBB's admission was unanimously approved by its General Assembly and that the FEB's objection did not constitute a veto. The FIQ emphasized its flexible membership policy, which includes non-UN member territories, and argued that Spanish law should not apply, as FIQ is governed by Colorado law. The FCBB supported the FIQ's position, asserting that FIQ's statutes allow for exceptions and that Spanish law is irrelevant since the dispute concerns FIQ membership, not Spanish sports practice.
The CAS affirmed its jurisdiction based on Article R47 of the Code of Sports-Related Arbitration, as both parties had agreed to arbitration. The appeal was deemed admissible, meeting procedural requirements under Articles R48 and R51 of the Code. The CAS rejected the FEB's argument that Spanish law should govern the dispute, emphasizing that matters related to membership in an international federation should be governed by the federation's own rules. The tribunal referenced Article R58 of the Code, which prioritizes the regulations of the sports organization involved, and Article 187 of the Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law (LDIP), which allows arbitrators to apply non-state rules, such as sports regulations. The CAS dismissed the FEB's claim that Spanish law should apply as a mandatory or overriding rule, noting that such rules must have a close connection to the dispute and serve a public policy purpose, which was not demonstrated.
The CAS also examined FIQ's statutes, which generally allow only one member per country but include exceptions. One exception permits additional members if traditionally distinct territories are recognized by other international federations, provided the original member does not object. Another provision allows the FIQ Congress to admit new members by a three-quarters majority vote, even without meeting the usual