The case involves a dispute between Hockey Club Prilly (HCP) and the Swiss Ice Hockey Federation (LSHG) regarding a match played on December 17, 1997, between HC Balcon du Jura and HCP in the Swiss third league. HCP filed a protest, claiming that a player from HC Balcon du Jura was ineligible to play. The protest was upheld by the Regional Legal Court of Swiss Romande on January 20, 1998, resulting in a forfeit loss for HC Balcon du Jura. HC Balcon du Jura appealed to the LSHG Appeals Chamber, which declared the appeal inadmissible on February 18, 1998, confirming the Regional Legal Court's decision. However, on the same day, the President of the Regional League of Swiss Romande sent a letter to HCP stating that the match result would stand, overturning the Regional Legal Court's decision, and attributing the issue to administrative errors. The letter also mentioned the possibility of an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
On February 21, 1998, HCP filed an appeal with CAS, seeking to annul the Regional League's decision and requesting a stay of execution, arguing that the Regional League President lacked authority to overturn decisions made by the LSHG's judicial bodies. HCP emphasized the urgency due to an upcoming promotion tournament starting on February 24, 1998. The LSHG Secretary General responded on February 23, 1998, stating that the Central Committee supported the Regional League's decision and that the appeal was inadmissible due to unpaid fees.
The CAS ruled on March 10, 1998, that it had jurisdiction under Article 66 of the LSHG statutes and Article R52 of the Sports Arbitration Code. It found that the conditions for granting a stay of execution were met, as the appeal had reasonable chances of success and immediate enforcement could cause serious, irreparable harm to HCP. The CAS noted that the LSHG Appeals Chamber was the final internal judicial body, and the Regional League lacked authority to overturn its decisions. Consequently, the CAS suspended the Regional League's February 18 decision, maintaining the enforceability of the earlier rulings until a final decision on the merits. The CAS also clarified that its ruling did not address the LSHG Central Committee's February 23 decision but suggested similar reasoning would apply if challenged.
The substitute President of the CAS Appeals Chamber granted the stay of execution, suspending the Regional League's decision pending a final resolution. The case highlights the procedural hierarchy within sports governance and the importance of adhering to established judicial processes.