The case centers on a dispute between several national underwater sports federations (FFESSM, FEDAS, FPAS, FAAS, and FCDS) and the Confédération Mondiale des Activités Subaquatiques (CMAS) over the validity of a decision to abolish underwater hunting competitions. The matter was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). On April 14, 1999, CMAS held an ordinary general assembly where a motion to discontinue underwater hunting competitions was passed with a majority of 70 out of 130 members (54%). The national federations contested this decision, arguing that it effectively amended CMAS's statutes by removing underwater hunting as a discipline, which required approval by an extraordinary general assembly with a two-thirds majority, as outlined in the organization's statutes (Articles 4.1.4.1, 4.1.5.1, and 4.1.5.2.4).
The CAS examined both the procedural and substantive aspects of the decision. While the motion had been included in the agenda of the ordinary general assembly without objections, the tribunal found that the decision constituted a statutory amendment because it altered CMAS's core objectives, which explicitly included underwater hunting as a discipline (Article 3.1.1.a). Since the decision was made by an ordinary assembly with only a simple majority, rather than the required extraordinary assembly with a two-thirds majority, the CAS ruled it invalid. The tribunal acknowledged CMAS's intention to modernize its activities in line with ethical concerns but stressed that such changes must comply with statutory procedures.
The ruling upheld the federations' arguments, declaring the contested decision null and void without needing to address additional claims. The tribunal noted that CMAS could still pursue the abolition of underwater hunting competitions by convening an extraordinary general assembly and securing the necessary two-thirds majority. The case highlights the importance of adhering to statutory requirements when making significant organizational changes. The decision reaffirmed the federations' position and rendered the CMAS motion legally ineffective. The tribunal concluded that no further examination of other arguments was required.