The case revolves around a dispute between Gymnova, a French company specializing in gymnastics equipment, and the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG). The conflict arose from Gymnova's role as the exclusive supplier of trampolines for the 2010 World Championships in Metz, France. The trampolines, certified by FIG until 2013, were later alleged by FIG to be defective and non-compliant with certification standards. FIG initiated disciplinary proceedings against Gymnova, accusing it of delivering substandard equipment and citing prior violations. The FIG Disciplinary Commission found Gymnova guilty of breaching standards due to defective springs and non-compliant mats, imposing a €2,000 fine, procedural costs, and requiring the decision to be published on FIG's website.
Gymnova appealed to the FIG Appeal Tribunal, which increased the fine to €5,000, revoked the trampoline certification for two years, and mandated broader publication of the sanction. Gymnova then took the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking annulment of the FIG Appeal Tribunal's decision, dismissal of all charges, and reimbursement of legal costs. The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction, noting that Gymnova, though not a formal FIG member, had agreed to comply with FIG regulations, including disciplinary measures. The CAS found no evidence that Gymnova had delivered trampolines different from the certified ones but upheld the finding of defective equipment due to poor quality and lack of precautions to prevent deterioration. The CAS also ruled that prior informal sanctions did not constitute a first offense for aggravated penalties.
Ultimately, the CAS partially upheld Gymnova's appeal, reducing the fine to €3,000 and lifting the certification revocation while maintaining the publication requirement and adjusting cost allocations. The decision clarified that while Gymnova was liable for defective equipment, the sanctions imposed by FIG were excessive. The case highlights the responsibilities of equipment suppliers in international sports and the importance of adhering to certification standards.
The procedural aspects of the case were also scrutinized. The CAS confirmed the appeal's admissibility, as it was filed within the 21-day deadline stipulated by FIG Statutes and the CAS Code. The parties had signed a procedural agreement acknowledging CAS jurisdiction, and Gymnova had committed to adhering to FIG regulations, including the disciplinary code. The CAS examined the formal admissibility of the appeal, finding it compliant with the rules. The applicable law included FIG regulations, Swiss law, and general principles of equity.
On substantive grounds, Gymnova disputed the allegations, arguing that minor defects were promptly rectified and did not constitute a violation. It also contested the characterization of the offense as a "second offense" and deemed the sanction disproportionate. The adjudicating body evaluated whether the misconduct met the criteria for an offense under FIG's disciplinary code, which includes delivering non-certified or substandard equipment. Gymnova argued that complaints were unreliable, citing improved athlete performance and competition reports. It denied supplying non-homologated equipment, stating that springs, which were defective, were not part of homologation tests. The FIG maintained that defective springs compromised the trampolines' functionality and that bed stretching exceeded permissible tolerances.
The adjudicating body found that while Gymnova did not supply materially different equipment, the trampolines were of poor quality due to defective springs. Gymnova was held accountable for this, though the charge of supplying non-homologated equipment was not sustained. The body also ruled that prior informal sanctions did not qualify Gymnova as a repeat offender, limiting penalties to those for a first offense. The sanctions included a one-year withdrawal of certification, a requirement for new testing, a €2,000 fine, and public disclosure of the penalty. Mitigating factors, such as late complaints and Gymnova's efforts to address issues during the competition, were considered.
In its final ruling, the CAS upheld the appeal in part, maintaining the fine and publication requirement but dismissing further claims. The decision emphasized that the penalty was proportionate to Gymnova's negligence in selecting substandard components, and any harsher sanction would have been excessive. The case underscores the obligations of equipment suppliers in international sports and the procedural and substantive complexities of disciplinary actions within sports federations.