The case revolves around Massimiliano Brignoni, an amateur inline hockey player, and his club, AS Inline Hockey Rangers Lugano Sorengo (IHRLS), who appealed against sanctions imposed by the Swiss Inline Hockey Federation (FSIH) following an incident during a match on September 7, 2008. Brignoni was penalized for entering the referees' zone and allegedly striking the referee multiple times. The FSIH's disciplinary department classified his actions as assault under Article 11 of its regulations, resulting in a one-year suspension for Brignoni and a CHF 400 fine for the club. The appeals commission upheld this decision, prompting the appellants to bring the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS, presided over by arbitrator Jean Gay, examined whether Brignoni's actions met the legal definition of assault, which requires intent to harm. The appellants argued that Brignoni's contact with the referee was not aggressive but intended to attract attention, thus lacking the necessary intent for assault. They also contested the club's fine, claiming it had no legal basis. The FSIH maintained that the sanctions were justified. The CAS concluded that Brignoni's actions, while inappropriate, did not demonstrate intent to harm the referee, and thus the sanctions were overturned. The decision emphasized proportionality and the principle of "nulla poena sine lege" (no penalty without law), ordering the FSIH to bear the costs of the proceedings.
The case highlights the CAS's role in ensuring fair application of disciplinary rules in sports, balancing strict enforcement with the necessity of proving intent in misconduct allegations. The ruling clarified the legal standards for assault in sports and reinforced the need for disciplinary measures to be legally justified and proportionate. Brignoni admitted to entering the referees' zone and touching the referee but denied any aggressive intent, a claim supported by witness testimonies and the referee's later account. The CAS found discrepancies in the descriptions of the contact but concluded that Brignoni's actions were not violent or threatening.
The FSIH had initially imposed severe penalties, citing "voies de fait" (acts of violence), but the CAS rejected this interpretation, stressing that intent and potential harm are necessary criteria, neither of which were present. The CAS annulled the one-year suspension and the club's fine, as the alleged misconduct did not justify such penalties. The final ruling cleared Brignoni and the team of all sanctions, rejecting further claims by the parties involved. This case underscores the importance of fairness and proportionality in sports disciplinary actions, ensuring that penalties are grounded in proven intent and actual risk of harm.