The case involves Aino-Kaisa Saarinen, a Finnish cross-country skier, and the Finnish Ski Association (FSA) appealing a disqualification decision by the Fédération Internationale de Ski (FIS) following an incident during a World Cup race in Rogla, Slovenia, on 20 December 2009. Saarinen was disqualified for intentional obstruction under the International Competition Rules (ICR) Article 392.5 after allegedly impeding another competitor, Petra Majdic, leading to Majdic's fall. Initial appeals to the FIS Appeals Commission and the FIS Court were dismissed, prompting the appellants to bring the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 1 April 2010.
The CAS panel, composed of Michael Beloff QC, Olli Rauste, and John Faylor, examined the principles governing CAS's role in reviewing field-of-play decisions. The panel emphasized that CAS generally defers to the autonomy of sports officials to avoid disrupting competitions and ensure certainty in outcomes. However, exceptions exist if decisions are tainted by bias, malice, bad faith, arbitrariness, or legal error. The panel noted that while CAS can review appellate decisions, its scope is limited to ensuring the appellate body acted within its jurisdiction and did not commit relevant errors.
The case also addressed the discretionary powers of sporting bodies in imposing sanctions. The panel acknowledged that reasonable people may differ on the severity of rule violations and appropriate penalties. While CAS can assess the proportionality of sanctions, it typically defers to the expertise of sport-specific bodies unless there is clear evidence of misconduct or legal error. The legal context of the dispute was governed by Swiss law, as FIS is domiciled in Switzerland, and the FIS statutes and competition rules.
The FIS Court had re-categorized the basis for Saarinen's disqualification from intentional obstruction to dolus eventualis (recklessness), arguing that Saarinen should have been aware her actions could obstruct Majdic. The Appeals Commission upheld the disqualification on additional grounds, including unsportsmanlike behavior and jeopardizing safety. The CAS panel found no evidence of unfairness in the hearing process, though it noted procedural flaws in the initial Jury decision, such as forming a provisional view before hearing Saarinen’s defense. However, the panel concluded these issues were remedied through the appeals process.
The CAS panel ultimately upheld the disqualification, finding no evidence of bias, malice, or legal error in the FIS's decision-making process. The ruling reinforced the doctrine of limited judicial interference in sports adjudication, respecting the authority of sporting bodies while ensuring fundamental fairness. The panel dismissed the appeal, confirming the FIS Court's decision and ordering no additional costs beyond a nominal fee. The case highlights the balance between respecting sports governing bodies' autonomy and ensuring procedural fairness in disciplinary decisions. The panel's decision underscores the importance of deference to sporting expertise while maintaining oversight to address clear injustices or procedural violations.