The case involves a legal dispute between Kolesarski Klub Perutnina Ptuj (the Appellant) and the 2011 Tour of Hainan Organising Committee (the Respondent) concerning the Appellant's withdrawal from the Tour of Hainan cycling race in October 2011. The Appellant, acting as the paying agent for the now-dissolved team Perutnina Ptuj, appealed a decision by the UCI Arbitral Board that ordered the team to pay CNY 338,316 to the Respondent for failing to appear at the race. The team withdrew, claiming the Respondent had not arranged and prepaid for excess luggage for their bicycles, as stipulated in their contract. The Respondent argued the team's failure to attend breached the agreement, invoking UCI regulations imposing financial penalties for such breaches.
The procedural history reveals the Appellant filed a Statement of Appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on January 4, 2013, nominating an arbitrator and treating the statement as its Appeal Brief. The Respondent requested an extension to file its Answer, citing delayed receipt of CAS correspondence. The Appellant opposed this extension and the late nomination of an arbitrator by the Respondent. The CAS panel deemed the Respondent’s Answer admissible, balancing the minimal prejudice caused by the delay against the greater harm of excluding the Respondent’s submission. The panel, initially composed of three arbitrators, faced a challenge when one arbitrator resigned due to a conflict of interest. A replacement was appointed, and a teleconference hearing was rescheduled.
Key issues included whether the Appellant had standing to appeal on behalf of the dissolved team and whether the Respondent’s failure to arrange luggage allowances justified the team’s withdrawal. The legal analysis centered on contractual terms and UCI regulations. The panel considered whether the Respondent’s obligation to book round-trip airline tickets implicitly included arranging adequate luggage allowances for bicycles, especially since the contract covered all team costs, including accommodation and transport. The panel also examined procedural matters, such as the validity of an unsigned petition under UCI regulations, concluding the lack of a signature did not automatically invalidate the UCI Arbitral Board’s decision.
The Appellant argued it had standing as the paying agent for the defunct team, referencing UCI Cycling Regulations and Swiss procedural law. The Respondent questioned the Appellant’s role as a paying agent and its obligation to bear the team’s liabilities. The panel confirmed the Appellant’s standing under UCI regulations, which state the paying agent represents the team and is jointly liable for its financial obligations. Another issue was whether procedural defects in the UCI Arbitral Board’s proceedings invalidated its decision. The Appellant highlighted the petition lacked the Respondent’s signature, deemed mandatory by UCI regulations. The Respondent countered the omission was inconsequential, as the intent to proceed was clear. The panel provisionally viewed the Appellant’s failure to raise this issue earlier as a waiver of the procedural irregularity.
The central dispute revolved around whether the contract included a term requiring the Respondent to arrange and pay for adequate luggage allowances for transporting the team’s bicycles. The team argued the Respondent’s offer to provide round-trip airline tickets implicitly included baggage, as bicycles were essential for participation. They also highlighted the team lacked funds to cover excess baggage and that advance arrangements were necessary. The Respondent countered the term "round-trip airline tickets" did not include baggage, as fees could only be determined at the airport, and reimbursement was customary among other teams. The majority of the panel sided with the team, ruling the contract obligated the Respondent to pay for excess baggage in advance, as airline tickets typically include baggage allowances, and the context—providing tickets for a cycling event—implied coverage for necessary equipment.
The panel examined whether the team validly canceled the contract due to the Respondent’s failure to arrange baggage. The team argued this breach justified cancellation, meaning they were no longer "entered" in the Tour and thus not subject to penalties under UCI regulations. The Respondent’s late offer of reimbursement (three months post-event) was deemed irrelevant, as the contract required direct payment. The panel concluded the Respondent’s failure to fulfill its contractual obligations warranted the team’s cancellation. The case underscores the importance of clear contractual terms and advance logistical arrangements in professional sports events. The CAS upheld the team’s appeal, quashing the UCI Arbitral Board’s decision, and dismissed all other