The case CAS 2013/A/3055, Riis Cycling A/S v. the Licence Commission of the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), involves a dispute over jurisdictional and admissibility issues in an arbitration proceeding. Riis Cycling A/S, owner of the professional cycling team Team Saxo-Tinkoff, contested decisions made by the UCI's Licence Commission (LC) regarding the issuance of a UCI WorldTour license. The case centers on the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement, the interpretation of the arbitration clause, and the legal interest of the parties involved. The arbitration panel, composed of Prof. Ulrich Haas, Michele Bernasconi, and Georg von Segesser, examined the formal validity of the arbitration agreement under Article 178(1) of the Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA), which requires written or text-based communication to be binding. The panel emphasized a broad interpretation of arbitration clauses unless indications suggest otherwise, guided by Swiss law principles of contract interpretation focusing on the parties' true and common intention or the reasonable meaning under good faith principles.
The UCI's licensing system, established in 2004, requires teams to meet sporting, ethical, financial, and administrative criteria to compete in top-tier events like the Tour de France. Riis Cycling's dispute arose from the UCI's licensing decisions, particularly concerning the application of a "neutralization rule" that excluded points from riders returning from doping suspensions. The panel's preliminary ruling focused on procedural and jurisdictional matters, leaving substantive issues for later stages. The case underscores the importance of clear arbitration agreements and the balance of power in contractual relationships, particularly in sports governance. The panel's decision ensures procedural fairness and access to justice in arbitration proceedings.
The document outlines the procedures and criteria for obtaining a UCI WorldTour license, including the evaluation of sporting, ethical, financial, and administrative criteria. Teams must submit applications by specified deadlines, accompanied by fees and required documentation. The LC reviews applications based on submitted documents, reports, and additional information, with applicants invited to hearings to defend their applications. Licenses are typically valid for four years, though shorter durations may be granted. The UCI administration may refer cases to the LC if registration issues arise, with provisions for hearings and appeals to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The process ensures thorough evaluation while maintaining transparency and accountability.
In 2012, Riis Cycling applied for a WorldTour license for Team Saxo-Tinkoff. The UCI's evaluation noted the team's reliance on Alberto Contador, whose points were neutralized due to a doping suspension, leading to a lower sporting ranking. The LC granted a two-year license, acknowledging the team's efforts to diversify its recruitment strategy. Appeals against LC decisions must be filed with CAS within 15 days, following an accelerated procedure. The case highlights the structured and time-bound nature of CAS appeals, emphasizing adherence to procedural rules and the limited scope for challenging LC decisions.
The panel addressed jurisdictional and admissibility issues, affirming its authority under Article 186 of the PILA to rule on its own jurisdiction. The CAS's jurisdiction was confirmed under Article 176 of the PILA, as Switzerland is the seat of arbitration and the appellant is not domiciled there. The arbitration clause in Article 2.15.226 of the UCI Regulations grants the CAS jurisdiction over appeals against LC decisions. The panel rejected the respondent's argument that the CAS lacked jurisdiction, clarifying that Article 2.15.227 pertains to standing rather than jurisdiction. The panel concluded that the arbitration clause is broad and unambiguous, covering the dispute.
Regarding admissibility, the panel found that the appellant alleged a contested decision, exhausted internal remedies, and filed the appeal within the specified time limits. The appellant demonstrated a legal interest, meeting the low threshold required. The panel dismissed the respondent's argument that the appellant waived its right to appeal, noting that forced waivers of judicial redress violate the European Convention on Human Rights. The panel distinguished the respondent's reference to a Swiss Federal Court decision, as it dealt with substantive claims unrelated to the current dispute.
In conclusion, the panel affirmed its jurisdiction over the appellant's requests, finding them covered by the arbitration clause in the UCI Regulations. The appeal was deemed admissible, with the merits to be examined in subsequent proceedings. The decision underscores the CAS's broad authority to review disputes involving sports governing bodies, provided they fall within the scope of relevant arbitration clauses. The panel's analysis