The case involved Andrew Hoy, a prominent equestrian athlete, appealing a decision by the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) concerning the allocation of costs in disciplinary proceedings. The FEI Tribunal had investigated allegations of horse abuse involving Hoy and another rider, Madeleine Brugman, during a competition in Portugal. While the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to sanction either party, it ordered them to split limited costs of CHF 3,000, citing procedural delays and overly broad legal submissions by their counsel. Hoy appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking annulment of the cost allocation and full reimbursement for his legal and travel expenses, totaling CHF 53,781. The FEI, in response, requested the dismissal of Hoy’s appeal and confirmation of its original decision, along with an order for Hoy to bear the arbitration costs.
The CAS Panel, composed of three Swiss arbitrators, addressed jurisdictional and procedural matters. Although the FEI initially questioned CAS jurisdiction, both parties agreed to proceed without objections, provided the case would not set a precedent. The Panel confirmed its jurisdiction based on this mutual agreement and decided against holding a hearing, as both parties consented after consultation.
In its analysis, the Panel emphasized that specific provisions on cost allocation in sports regulations take precedence over general legal principles. It noted that Swiss procedural law typically awards only partial cost reimbursement to successful parties, and sports federation regulations often preclude athletes from claiming legal costs against the federation. The Panel rejected Hoy’s argument for full compensation, stating it was inconsistent with fairness and the regulatory framework. It also upheld the FEI’s position that protecting animal welfare and combating doping justify potential breaches of private interests, such as personality rights.
The Panel concluded that the FEI Tribunal’s decision on costs was appropriate, given the procedural conduct of Hoy’s legal team, which contributed to delays and unnecessary deliberations. It dismissed Hoy’s appeal, confirming the original cost allocation and ordering him to bear the arbitration costs. The decision reinforced the principle that arbitration should be "fast, fair, and free," with costs not acting as a barrier but also not guaranteeing full reimbursement for the prevailing party.
In a subsequent review, the CAS Panel examined Hoy’s claims for damages under Article 41 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO), which requires proof of damage, an unlawful act, causation, and fault. The Panel found none of these requirements met, as no unlawful act by the FEI was established, and Hoy’s personality rights were not breached. Additionally, there was no evidence of a violation of Swiss Cartel Law. Since no unlawful act was proven, causation and fault could not be established, leading to the dismissal of Hoy’s claim for damages.
Regarding cost allocation, the Panel criticized the FEI Tribunal’s decision to award Hoy only CHF 1,500, which did not cover his travel expenses. It ruled that, under Article 24.3 of the FEI Internal Regulations, Hoy should be compensated for travel costs (CHF 2,100) and legal fees (CHF 10,000), deducting any amounts already paid by the FEI. The Panel set aside the FEI Tribunal’s decision on costs and granted Hoy the revised compensation, while dismissing all other claims. The final ruling partially upheld the appeal, adjusting the cost allocation to ensure fairness in procedural expenses. The decision underscored the balance between athletes' rights and the regulatory authority of sports federations in disciplinary matters.