The case revolves around a dispute between the British Equestrian Federation (BEF) and the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) concerning the relegation of teams in the 2010 Meydan FEI Nations Cup. The conflict centered on the interpretation of relegation rules and the principle of immutability of final decisions. Initially, the FEI published the 2009 Nations Cup Final Standings, placing Great Britain and Belgium in 8th and 9th positions, respectively, both with 22 points, while Italy was last with 14 points. The rules stated that the two lowest-placed teams would be relegated to the Promotional League. However, due to ambiguity in the rules, the FEI Bureau issued an August Decision allowing both Great Britain and Belgium to compete in the 2010 Top League, relegating only Italy.
The BEF challenged this decision, arguing that the FEI lacked the authority to reverse a final decision without special circumstances. The case hinged on legal principles such as the immutability of final decisions and the doctrine of res judicata, which prevent altering finalized decisions unless under limited exceptions like new evidence or a formal request for revision. Swiss law, governing the FEI, upholds these principles to ensure legal certainty. The tribunal emphasized that even incorrect decisions cannot be modified once finalized unless through proper legal channels.
The FEI’s August Decision was influenced by prior debates about expanding the Nations Cup from eight to ten teams, which faced criticism from organizers and stakeholders like the International Association of Chefs d'Equipe. They argued for a return to the eight-team format due to practical difficulties. The tribunal acknowledged these concerns but ruled that practical motivations could not override the legal principle of finality.
The BEF appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which examined jurisdiction, applicable law, and the merits of the case. The CAS Panel confirmed jurisdiction under Article R47 of the CAS Code and applied Swiss law where FEI regulations were silent. The Panel found the FEI’s relegation rules ambiguous, particularly Rules 3, 10, and 16, and upheld the FEI Bureau’s August Decision as valid, emphasizing it was made by the proper authority and communicated to affected parties. The Panel drew parallels with administrative law, where decisions can only be reversed under limited circumstances, none of which applied here.
The CAS Panel concluded that the FEI Bureau’s August Decision was irrevocable and that the FEI lacked justification to reverse it without new substantive reasons or procedural grounds. The Panel annulled the FEI Tribunal’s decision of 21 January 2010 and set aside the September 2009 resolution to the extent it relegated Great Britain from the 2010 Nations Cup. The ruling reinforced the importance of legal certainty and finality in sports governance, underscoring that federations cannot unilaterally revoke final decisions without proper justification. The case highlights the challenges of balancing competitive standards with universality in sports and the need for clear, unambiguous rules to prevent such disputes.