The case involves a dispute between the French, Italian, and Dutch rowing federations (FFSA, FIC, and FNSA) and the International Rowing Federation (FISA) over a decision made during an extraordinary congress in Sydney in February 1997. The decision in question amended Article 36 of the FISA Racing Code, introducing new advertising rules for oars, boats, clothing, and officials' equipment. The federations contested the validity of this decision, arguing it was made without proper procedural adherence, including prior inclusion in the congress agenda, adequate discussion, and the opportunity for reconsideration. They claimed the decision violated FISA's statutes, which required proposed changes to be submitted well in advance and the agenda circulated at least eight weeks before the congress. The federations also criticized the rushed voting process and lack of sufficient debate, deeming the decision undemocratic and procedurally flawed.
The dispute was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the sole external judicial authority recognized under FISA's statutes. The CAS examined the case under Swiss civil law, which governs FISA as a private association based in Lausanne. The federations argued the decision was null due to procedural defects, while FISA maintained it was valid and within the Council's authority. The CAS found that FISA's procedural irregularities—such as bypassing the agenda requirement and preventing reconsideration—rendered the decision invalid. The ruling clarified that while the Council had the power to amend implementation regulations, the manner in which the decision was made breached statutory provisions. The CAS emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules in association governance to ensure the validity of decisions.
The CAS dismissed FISA's objections, including claims that the arbitration requests were premature, that internal remedies had not been exhausted, and that the requests were filed too late. It affirmed its jurisdiction and allowed the arbitration to proceed, highlighting the CAS's role in resolving disputes where internal mechanisms are ineffective. The final ruling partially upheld the federations' claims, annulling the contested decision while leaving the existing regulations in force. The decision underscored the balance between statutory delegation and procedural fairness in international sports federations, emphasizing the need for transparency and adherence to governance rules. The case serves as a reminder of the complexities in sports governance and the critical role of procedural integrity in decision-making processes.