The case revolves around a dispute between FSV Kroppach (FSVK), a German table tennis club, and the European Table Tennis Union (ETTU) concerning the validity of a match result in the 1st European Women’s Tennis Table Champions League Final held on March 7, 2008, in Kroppach. The match was contested between FSVK and the Dutch club MS Services Heerlen (MSSH). The dispute arose because the internationally appointed umpires failed to attend, leading to two German international umpires, present as spectators, stepping in to officiate. FSVK won the match 3-1, but both teams initially protested due to the absence of official umpires. FSVK later withdrew its protest, while MSSH’s protest was dismissed by the ETTU on March 11, 2008, with the match result initially upheld. However, MSSH appealed to the ETTU’s Board of Justice, which ruled on March 21, 2008, that the match should be replayed. FSVK challenged this decision, but the ETTU’s Board of Appeal upheld the ruling on April 2, 2008, ordering a replay.
FSVK then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on April 7, 2008, seeking to overturn the ETTU’s decision and validate the original match result. The CAS proceedings continued despite ETTU’s initial refusal to participate, with FSVK providing additional evidence. The sole arbitrator, Patrick Lafranchi, determined no hearing was necessary but requested further correspondence. The legal basis for CAS jurisdiction stemmed from Article R57 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration and Rule A.5.8 of the ETTU Constitution, which allows appeals to CAS for dissatisfied parties. The arbitrator had full authority to review facts and law, and the appeal was deemed admissible as it met procedural requirements. The applicable law was determined to be that of Luxembourg, as no alternative agreement existed.
The core issue was whether the match result was valid despite the absence of officially appointed umpires, as ETTU’s ECL-Rule K 14.1 required international umpires from associations other than those of the competing clubs. The arbitrator examined whether this procedural irregularity invalidated the match, considering whether the conditions, though equal for both teams, violated competition regulations enough to warrant a replay. The prior instance had a divided opinion: the majority viewed the rule as inflexible, while the minority argued the match conditions were fair. The Sole Arbitrator disagreed with the majority, noting deviations from such rules are common in sports practice. However, the focus shifted to whether match conditions, such as lighting and hall compliance, met ECL-Rules. MSSH maintained their protest, citing inadequate hall conditions, including broken bulbs affecting lighting, which were not inspected by the umpires. The Sole Arbitrator found the match conditions non-compliant with ECL-Rules due to the lack of necessary controls, upholding MSSH’s protest.
The CAS ruled the appeal admissible but dismissed it, affirming the ETTU Board of Appeal’s decision and rejecting all other relief requests. The outcome underscored the importance of adhering to regulatory standards in match conditions, even if both teams agreed to proceed under protest. The case highlights the role of arbitration in resolving sports disputes and the necessity of procedural compliance in sports governance. The final decision, issued on November 19, 2008, emphasized that regulatory violations, regardless of fairness in competition, could invalidate match results.