The case CAS 2004/A/555 involved a dispute between the Hellenic Hockey Federation (HHF), the International Hockey Federation (FIH), and the South African Hockey Association (SAHA) concerning the qualification of the Greek men’s hockey team for the 2004 Athens Olympic Games. The central issues revolved around the interpretation of the qualification system, the condition of the pitch during matches, and procedural aspects of arbitration under the CAS Code. The dispute arose when the FIH's qualification system required the Greek team to play a best-of-three playoff against the 12th-ranked team if they failed to qualify via the European Nations Cup. Initially, Cuba was designated as the opponent, but after Cuba withdrew, Canada was substituted. The HHF contested this change, arguing it violated the approved criteria and unfairly disadvantaged the Greek team, seeking either automatic qualification or a match against Cuba or France, the next-ranked team. The FIH maintained that its decision was justified, as Cuba's withdrawal invalidated their status, and Canada was the appropriate replacement. The IOC supported the FIH's stance, leading to CAS arbitration.
The CAS panel, comprising Prof. Michael Geistlinger, Mr. Chris Georghiades, and Mr. Stephan Netzle, addressed procedural matters first, clarifying that the assignment of arbitration proceedings to a specific division was non-contestable by the parties. The panel emphasized that a dispute must be formally raised in writing to initiate legal proceedings. It also noted that technical rules, such as pitch standards, fell under the federation's jurisdiction, with judicial review limited to cases of arbitrariness, illegality, or violations of general legal principles. The panel ruled that the HHF's appeal was admissible, as the dispute was officially raised on 26 January 2004, and the arbitration request was filed within the one-month deadline. Regarding the pitch in Madrid, the panel found no evidence that the FIH's decision was arbitrary or violated legal principles, dismissing the HHF's appeal on this issue.
On the qualification dispute, the panel acknowledged the lack of clarity in the criteria but concluded it was a matter of interpretation rather than amendment. The FIH argued for an implicit replacement rule based on general practice, while the HHF contended that the absence of explicit replacement language meant no replacement was intended. The panel found the FIH's interpretation logical and consistent with the host nation rule's purpose, which was to ensure a minimum qualification standard for Greece, not automatic qualification. The panel upheld the FIH's decision to replace Cuba with Canada, requiring Greece to play Canada in the playoff. Greece lost both matches, failing to qualify for the Olympics. The panel expressed regret over the outcome, noting the lack of clear criteria led to the host nation's exclusion, breaking a tradition of host participation. The CAS ultimately dismissed the HHF's appeal, affirming the FIH's authority in interpreting and applying its rules, provided they were not arbitrary or unlawful. The case highlighted the importance of precise wording in qualification rules to avoid ambiguity and unintended consequences.