The case involves an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) by Sheikh Khalid Al Qassimi and the Abu Dhabi Racing Team against a decision by the International Court of Appeal (ICA) of the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA). The dispute originated from the 2014 Dubai International Rally, where Sheikh Khalid initially won but was later penalized following a protest by Nassr Al-Attiyah, who was subsequently declared the winner. The appellants challenged the ICA's decision, arguing that CAS had jurisdiction to hear their appeal based on the FIA's Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, which they interpreted as permitting external appeals after exhausting internal remedies.
The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Jan Paulsson, Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, and Prof. Denis Oswald, examined whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The appellants contended that Article 20 of the FIA Rules allowed appeals to external tribunals like CAS after internal dispute resolution mechanisms were exhausted. They also claimed their membership in sports associations such as ARISF and Sport Accord granted them the right to appeal to CAS. Additionally, they argued the ICA lacked independence and impartiality, violating their right to a fair hearing.
The respondents, including the FIA, Qatar Motor and Motorcycle Federation (QMMF), and Nassr Al-Attiyah, objected to CAS jurisdiction, asserting that no explicit arbitration agreement or regulatory provision granted CAS authority over the dispute. They argued that associative rights must be explicitly established rather than assumed, and mere expectations of CAS access did not create legal rights.
The CAS panel emphasized that jurisdiction requires either a specific arbitration agreement or recognition in the governing body's statutes or regulations. It rejected the argument that Swiss law's favorable view of arbitration could independently establish jurisdiction. The panel also clarified that associative rights must be explicitly created, not inferred from expectations or perceived appropriateness of CAS as a forum.
Ultimately, the panel concluded that CAS lacked jurisdiction because the FIA's rules did not explicitly provide for appeals to CAS in this context, and no arbitration agreement existed between the parties. The decision underscores the necessity of clear jurisdictional foundations in sports arbitration, reinforcing that rights to arbitration cannot be presumed but must be explicitly granted. The case highlights the importance of precise regulatory language in governing sports disputes and the limits of CAS jurisdiction absent explicit agreements or provisions. The ruling dismissed the appeal, removed the case from the CAS roll, and rejected all other motions or requests for relief, emphasizing that jurisdiction must be established and cannot be presumed based on procedural expectations or perceived suitability of a forum.