The case revolves around a dispute between the Croatian Golf Federation (CGF) and the Croatian Olympic Committee (COC) concerning the exclusion of CGF's membership from the COC. The CGF appealed a decision by the COC’s Sports Arbitration Council, which had rejected its request for an extraordinary examination of the COC Assembly's decision to exclude it. The appeal was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), with the central issue being whether CAS had jurisdiction to hear the case. The CGF argued that jurisdiction was established through an arbitration agreement, citing a statement on the COC’s website indicating that decisions of the Sports Arbitration Council could be appealed to CAS. The COC countered that the website text was merely informational and did not constitute a binding arbitration agreement.
The CAS panel examined whether the website statement met the legal requirements of an arbitration agreement under Swiss law, which mandates a clear and definite agreement to submit disputes to arbitration. The panel concluded that the website text did not qualify as an enforceable arbitration agreement because it was intended for general information rather than as a formal offer to arbitrate. The panel also interpreted Rule 61.2 of the Olympic Charter, which limits CAS jurisdiction to disputes closely tied to a specific edition of the Olympic Games, and found that the membership dispute did not meet this criterion. The panel emphasized that broader interpretation would undermine Rule 61.1, which governs general disputes not linked to a particular Games.
The proceedings were bifurcated to first address jurisdiction and admissibility, with both parties waiving a hearing on these issues. The panel ultimately ruled that CAS lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, stressing that arbitration agreements must be explicit and that general website postings do not suffice unless clearly intended as binding offers. The CGF further argued that the COC’s statutes permitted appeals to CAS, referencing Article 72(3) of the COC Statutes, but the panel found this provision narrowly applicable only to Olympic-related disputes. The COC challenged the validity of the alleged arbitration agreement and questioned the CGF’s standing, arguing its representative was not duly authorized.
The panel’s analysis under Swiss law (Article 178 of the Private International Law Act) highlighted the necessity of clear mutual consent for an arbitration agreement. It referenced prior CAS jurisprudence and a Swiss Federal Tribunal case, which underscored that general statements do not constitute binding arbitration offers. The panel noted the COC’s website was publicly accessible and intended for general information, lacking the specificity required for a valid arbitration agreement. The publication described the functions of the Sports Arbitration Council but did not explicitly present itself as an offer to arbitrate. Consequently, the panel found no evidence of a mutual commitment to arbitrate disputes.
The panel’s final decision upheld the absence of a valid arbitration agreement, ruling that CAS lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. The case was terminated and removed from the CAS roll, with no further consideration of substantive relief. The outcome underscores the importance of precise contractual language in establishing arbitration jurisdiction and the necessity of explicit provisions or agreements to grant CAS authority in disputes. The decision reaffirms that general informational postings, without clear intent to be legally binding, cannot form the basis for arbitration agreements.