The case involves a legal dispute between Stichting Ronde van Nederland (the Foundation), the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), and Eneco Holding N.V. over the granting of a UCI ProTour license for the Tour of Benelux. The Foundation had previously organized the Tour of Holland (later renamed the Eneco Tour) until 2004. With the introduction of the UCI ProTour in 2005, the UCI proposed replacing the Tour of Holland with the Tour of Benelux, deeming the former insufficiently prestigious. The Foundation initially resisted collaboration with Belgian partners but eventually agreed to a joint four-year license with the Belgian Road Runners Club (BRRC), organizing the event as the Eneco Tour. Disputes arose in 2006 between the license holders and sponsor Eneco, leading the UCI ProTour Council to consider withdrawing the license. A temporary agreement allowed the event to continue until the license expired in 2008.
When new applications were submitted for the 2009 license, the Foundation sought full ownership, while Eneco filed a competing application. The UCI Licence Commission granted the license to Eneco, prompting the Foundation to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS panel addressed several legal issues, confirming its broad review powers under Article R57 of the CAS Code but noting these could be limited by UCI regulations. It upheld the principle of party autonomy in choosing applicable law, as per Swiss Private International Law and the CAS Code, allowing sporting regulations to govern the dispute. The panel ruled that the Foundation lacked standing to appeal the decision granting Eneco a license, as UCI regulations explicitly barred appeals against decisions concerning other applicants.
Regarding the Foundation’s appeal against the rejection of its own application, the panel found the appeal admissible but limited its review to assessing arbitrariness under UCI regulations. It concluded that the Licence Commission’s decision was not arbitrary, as the Foundation failed to meet organizational quality standards and lacked sufficient financial guarantees. The panel also rejected the Foundation’s claim of exclusive ownership rights over the event, stating such a claim would create an unreasonable monopoly and undermine the licensing process. The CAS upheld the UCI Licence Commission’s decision, dismissing the Foundation’s appeal and affirming Eneco’s right to the license.
The case highlights the rigorous standards for obtaining a UCI ProTour license and the importance of demonstrating organizational capability, financial stability, and compliance with regulations. The CAS emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in sporting disputes governed by specific rules, reinforcing the UCI’s authority to ensure high-quality events. The final ruling dismissed all appeals and requests for relief, leaving the initial decisions unchanged and concluding the dispute. The decision underscores the balance between regulatory compliance and the autonomy of sporting bodies in managing professional cycling events.