The case CAS 2009/A/1788 UMMC Ekaterinburg v. FIBA Europe e.V. centered on a dispute regarding the eligibility rules for the Euro League Women (ELW) basketball tournament. The appellants, Russian basketball clubs UMMC Ekaterinburg and SPARTAK Moscow Region, challenged FIBA Europe's Elimination Rules, which mandated that clubs from the same country face each other in the quarter-final playoffs and semi-finals to ensure the final featured teams from different nations. The appellants argued these rules were discriminatory under European Community (EC) law, particularly the non-discrimination clause in the Communities–Russia Partnership Agreement, which prohibits discrimination based on nationality for Russian nationals legally employed in the EU.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel, comprising Mark Hovell, Michele Bernasconi, and Martin Schimke, examined the case and upheld FIBA Europe's rules. The panel noted that while EC law prohibits discrimination based on nationality, it allows exceptions for sports regulations that serve legitimate sporting interests, such as maintaining the international character of competitions. The panel emphasized that sports bodies have broad discretion in organizing competitions and that rules with incidental economic effects do not automatically violate EC law if they are justified by sporting objectives.
The appellants had initially sought to annul FIBA Europe's decision and prevent the application of the Elimination Rules in future competitions. However, SPARTAK Moscow Region later withdrew from the appeal, leaving UMMC Ekaterinburg as the sole appellant. The CAS panel ultimately dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Elimination Rules were not discriminatory and were justified by the need to preserve the international nature of the ELW. The panel also ordered the appellants to bear the costs of the proceedings.
The case reaffirmed the principle that sports federations have the authority to self-regulate in matters related to the organization of competitions, provided their rules are justified by legitimate sporting interests and do not constitute arbitrary discrimination. The decision highlighted the balance between non-discrimination principles in EC law and the autonomy of sports governing bodies in structuring competitions. The panel also addressed procedural issues, including the admissibility of the appeal, and determined that the appellant had a legitimate legal interest in challenging the decision.
On the merits, the panel examined whether the ELW Regulations violated anti-discrimination provisions in the Olympic Charter, FIBA General Statutes, and FIBA Internal Regulations, as well as EC law. The panel acknowledged that sports bodies have discretion in designing competition formats to maintain international character, referencing precedents like the Mouscron case, where the European Commission upheld rules governing competition structures as outside the scope of EU law. The panel also considered the Meca-Medina judgment, which outlines criteria for assessing whether sporting rules disproportionately restrict competition.
The panel concluded that the rules were proportionate and necessary to achieve the stated objective of maintaining the competition's international character, even if they had indirect economic consequences. The document also touched on competition law, noting that while European competition legislation does not provide unlimited exceptions for sports, the rules in question were justified as they pursued legitimate objectives inherent to the sport's organization. The Panel ultimately ruled that the Elimination Rules were justified and did not violate discrimination or competition laws.
In its final ruling, the Panel dismissed the appeal filed by UMMC Ekaterinburg, upheld the decision of FIBA Europe's Appeal Commission, and rejected all other motions or prayers for relief. The decision reinforces the legitimacy of FIBA Europe's rules in maintaining the international and competitive integrity of European women's basketball.