The case revolves around a dispute between the Royal Sporting Club Anderlecht (RSC Anderlecht) and the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) concerning a decision by UEFA's Executive Committee on September 22, 1997, which excluded RSC Anderlecht from UEFA interclub competitions for one season due to allegations of referee corruption in matches from 1983 and 1984. The decision was based on a report from a special investigation committee, which found evidence of corruption involving RSC Anderlecht in matches against Banik Ostrava (1983) and Nottingham Forest (1984). RSC Anderlecht contested the decision, citing procedural irregularities, lack of due process, and the Executive Committee's lack of authority to issue such a ruling. Initially, the club considered legal action in Swiss civil courts but later proposed arbitration before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). UEFA agreed to arbitration on December 18, 1997, under the condition that the process would follow CAS rules, apply Swiss law, and exclude civil court intervention. RSC Anderlecht formally submitted its case to CAS on January 26, 1998, seeking annulment of UEFA's decision and public notification of the ruling in sports media.
UEFA defended its decision by asserting the Executive Committee's authority to impose sanctions and arguing that RSC Anderlecht's challenge was time-barred under Article 75 of the Swiss Civil Code. A hearing was held on May 8, 1998, where the chairman of UEFA's investigation committee testified. The legal analysis focused on whether the UEFA Executive Committee had jurisdiction to issue the decision and whether the arbitration agreement between the parties was valid. CAS determined that the parties had entered into a binding arbitration agreement through their exchange of letters in December 1997, granting CAS jurisdiction. The case also examined whether UEFA's decision complied with procedural fairness and statutory competence.
On July 22, 1998, CAS ruled on the validity of UEFA's decision and the arbitration process. The decision clarified that disputes between sports associations and their members could be resolved through arbitration if both parties consented, provided the arbitration tribunal operated independently and ensured procedural fairness. The case reinforced that arbitration agreements could be formed through written correspondence and that sports governing bodies must adhere to their own statutes when imposing disciplinary measures. The ruling also highlighted that nullity claims under Swiss law could arise from breaches of statutory or procedural rules, not just violations of mandatory legal norms.
Further analysis revealed that the UEFA Executive Committee had overstepped its authority by handling a disciplinary matter that should have been addressed by UEFA's judicial bodies, such as the Control and Disciplinary Commission or the Appeals Jury. The CAS found that the Executive Committee's reliance on a subsidiary competence rule (Article 28 of UEFA's statutes) was inappropriate, as disciplinary matters were explicitly assigned to judicial bodies under UEFA's regulations. The CAS emphasized the importance of adhering to defined competencies to ensure procedural fairness and legal certainty. The ruling invalidated the Executive Committee's decision, noting that had standard disciplinary procedures been followed, RSC Anderlecht might have benefited from a statute of limitations defense.
The case set a precedent for resolving sports-related disputes through arbitration while underscoring the importance of due process and jurisdictional competence in disciplinary decisions. It also highlighted the need for sports organizations to uniformly apply their regulations and avoid deviating from established procedures to achieve specific outcomes. The CAS did not address the merits of the corruption allegations, as the procedural irregularities were sufficient to nullify the decision. The ruling reinforced the principle that sports governing bodies must adhere to their own rules and ensure fair treatment for all parties involved.