The case involves an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding a disciplinary decision by the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) against a rhythmic gymnastics judge. The judge was suspended for one year due to alleged intentional and significant scoring discrepancies during the 2000 European Championships in Zaragoza, Spain. The FIG's decision was based on violations of its scoring code and disciplinary regulations, citing improper judging and breach of the judge's oath. The judge, supported by the German Gymnastics Federation, appealed the decision, arguing procedural irregularities, insufficient reasoning, and lack of prior warnings. The FIG's Appeals Tribunal initially annulled the decision due to procedural flaws but later upheld the suspension, finding the judge's conduct warranted disciplinary action.
The CAS examined its jurisdiction under Article R47 of the Code of Sports-Related Arbitration, confirming its competence since the FIG's 2000 Statutes allowed appeals to the CAS within 21 days of the decision's notification. The appeal was deemed admissible as it met procedural requirements, including the payment of a CHF 500 fee. The applicable rules included the FIG's 2000 and 1997 Statutes, disciplinary codes, and technical regulations, with Swiss law serving as supplementary law. The appellant argued that the FIG lacked jurisdiction because the alleged misconduct occurred during the European Championships, not a FIG-organized event. However, the CAS ruled that the FIG's regulations applied to judges at the European Championships due to references in the event's rules, extending the FIG's authority beyond its own competitions.
The appellant also contested the Appeal Tribunal's competence, claiming the Disciplinary Commission should have handled the appeal under the 2000 disciplinary code. The CAS found that the 2000 disciplinary code, though mistakenly dated January 1, 2000, only took effect with the 2000 Statutes, which were not yet in force when the appeal was filed in July 2000. Thus, the Appeal Tribunal was the correct authority at the time. The appellant further raised concerns about the composition of the Appeals Tribunal, arguing it should have been formed according to the 1997 disciplinary code. This argument was dismissed, as procedural rules in force at the time of the tribunal's formation (April and June 2001) applied, meaning the 2000 code governed its composition.
The appellant also contested the Appeals Tribunal's authority to re-examine the case in its entirety, claiming it should have only upheld or annulled the decision without reassessing the facts. This argument was rejected, as the nature of an appeal inherently allows for a full review of both facts and law. The appellant invoked the principle of ne bis in idem (prohibiting double jeopardy), arguing that the tribunal's re-examination violated this principle. This claim was dismissed, as the principle applies to criminal proceedings, not disciplinary actions governed by private law.
The CAS confirmed that the Appeals Tribunal had full jurisdiction to reassess the case, rejecting the appellant's claim that the principle of ne bis in idem applied. The appellant also argued that the decision was insufficiently reasoned and based on unproven allegations. However, the CAS found that the FIG had adequately substantiated its claims with witness testimonies, expert analyses, and detailed reports, which demonstrated significant discrepancies in the appellant's scoring. The appellant failed to provide any counter-evidence or challenge the FIG's proofs, nor did she appear at the CAS hearing to defend herself. The CAS concluded that the appellant had indeed violated the FIG's scoring code by awarding scores that did not reflect the gymnasts' performances, constituting a serious breach of her duties.
The FIG's disciplinary guidelines stipulate that such grave errors can result in suspension of judging credentials for up to two years, depending on the severity of the misconduct. The CAS ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the FIG's decision due to the appellant's failure to refute the evidence against her and the clear proof of her violations. The ruling emphasizes that private disciplinary procedures, unlike criminal cases, do not afford the presumption of innocence, placing the burden of proof on the accused to disprove allegations once the federation has presented credible evidence. The decision underscores the importance of adherence to professional standards in judging and the consequences of failing to meet those obligations. The CAS concluded that all grounds for appeal should be rejected, and the sanctions against the appellant were justified. The final ruling rejected the appeal, upheld the FIG's decision, and maintained the imposed penalties.