The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) case 2011/A/2543 involves a dispute between Gymnova, a French gymnastics equipment manufacturer, and the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG). The conflict arose after Gymnova supplied trampolines for the 2010 World Championships in Metz, which the FIG later deemed defective and non-compliant with certification standards. The FIG imposed sanctions, including a fine, public disclosure of the decision, and withdrawal of Gymnova’s trampoline certification. Gymnova appealed to the FIG’s Appeals Tribunal, which upheld the sanctions but increased the fine and extended the certification withdrawal to two years. Gymnova then escalated the matter to the CAS, seeking a suspension of the sanctions pending a final decision.
The CAS evaluated the request for a stay of execution based on three key criteria: whether Gymnova faced irreparable harm, whether the appeal had a reasonable chance of success, and whether the balance of interests favored suspension. The CAS found that Gymnova would suffer significant reputational and financial harm if the sanctions were enforced, as the company had already lost contracts, including one with the Danish Gymnastics Federation, and faced exclusion from future competitions. The harm was deemed unquantifiable and irreparable, as later compensation would not fully restore Gymnova’s standing. The CAS also noted procedural flaws in the FIG’s decision-making process, suggesting Gymnova’s appeal had merit.
In balancing interests, the CAS concluded that suspending the sanctions would not harm the FIG, as the federation failed to demonstrate that enforcement was necessary for gymnast safety or competition integrity. The panel highlighted that no injuries or performance issues were reported during the 2010 World Championships, undermining the FIG’s claims. Consequently, the CAS granted a partial stay of execution, suspending all sanctions except the financial penalties, which were deferred pending the final decision. The costs of the interim order were reserved for the main proceedings.
The case underscores the CAS’s role in ensuring procedural fairness and preventing irreparable harm during appeals. The interim ruling provided Gymnova with relief while the appeal was pending, reflecting the CAS’s careful consideration of the parties’ interests. The final outcome would depend on the merits of Gymnova’s case, but the interim decision highlighted the importance of safeguarding against undue damage during legal proceedings. The CAS emphasized that its ruling did not prejudge the final result but aimed to maintain a fair and balanced process.