The case involves an appeal by G. against a decision by the Judicial Committee of the International Equestrian Federation (FEI), dated 31 January 2000. The appeal was filed with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 13 March 2000, following the required procedures, including payment of the CAS Court Office fee. The Appellant submitted his appeal brief on 31 March 2000, and a panel of CAS arbitrators was formed, consisting of Mr. Karl-Heinz Klee (President), Mr. Jacques Baumgartner, and Mr. Denis Oswald. The FEI responded to the appeal on 16 June 2000. A hearing was scheduled for 25 July 2000 in Lausanne, as confirmed by an Order of Procedure signed by both parties.
During the hearing, the parties requested a recess to discuss an agreement, and upon resuming, the Appellant withdrew the appeal. The CAS panel noted the withdrawal and considered the application of Article R65.4 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration, which allows the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division to impose arbitration costs on the parties, despite the general rule that appeals procedures are free of charge. The panel observed that the parties could have reached an agreement earlier or requested a postponement of the hearing to negotiate, avoiding unnecessary costs. Instead, they only informed the panel of their agreement at the hearing, rendering the presence of the arbitrators and the ad hoc clerk unnecessary.
Given these circumstances, the panel applied Articles R64.4 and R64.5, ordering the parties to contribute to the costs related to the hearing. The CAS emphasized its role in resolving disputes and encouraging conciliation but noted that the hearing costs could have been avoided with earlier negotiations. Consequently, the Appellant was ordered to bear two-thirds of the arbitration costs, considering his travel from Italy, while the FEI was ordered to pay one-third.
The final order by the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division noted the withdrawal of the appeal, terminated the procedure, and imposed the cost-sharing arrangement. The decision underscores the importance of timely negotiations to avoid unnecessary procedural expenses while acknowledging the successful resolution of the dispute.