The case involves Bernard Giudicelli, former President of the French Tennis Federation (FFT) and member of the International Tennis Federation (ITF) Board of Directors, who appealed against his removal from the ITF Board following a criminal conviction for public defamation under French law. The dispute stemmed from Giudicelli’s 2017 public accusation against former tennis player Gilles Moretton, alleging involvement in a ticket reselling scheme. Moretton sued for defamation, leading to Giudicelli’s conviction by the Tribunal Correctionnel de Lyon in September 2017, resulting in a €10,000 fine. Giudicelli later withdrew his appeal after a settlement.
The ITF became aware of the conviction in March 2018 and invoked Article 21(k)(iii) of its Constitution, which mandated automatic removal of a Board member upon conviction of any criminal offense. Legal advice confirmed the Board had no discretion to make exceptions. In August 2018, the ITF amended the rule to require that the offense be recognized in most jurisdictions and either involve a custodial sentence or, as determined by an independent expert, bring the ITF into disrepute. Michael Beloff QC, appointed as the independent expert, concluded that Giudicelli’s continued presence would harm the ITF’s reputation, rendering him ineligible for Board membership for four years.
Giudicelli challenged the ITF’s decisions before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the original rule should not apply retroactively and that his conviction did not warrant removal. The sole arbitrator, Prof. Philippe Sands QC, applied English contract law principles, emphasizing that contractual terms must be interpreted as a reasonable reader would understand them. The arbitrator found the original rule unambiguous and upheld the ITF’s Removal Decision, as the conviction automatically vacated Giudicelli’s position under the Constitution’s wording at the time. The arbitrator also dismissed arguments against the ineligibility period, noting the ITF’s authority to impose such measures.
However, the CAS partially upheld Giudicelli’s appeal, confirming the vacation of his position but annulling the four-year ban. The ruling highlighted that the 2018 text used by the ITF was inadequate for addressing future scenarios, as it was drafted under different circumstances and before it was enforceable. The Sole Arbitrator noted that the Board had no legal basis to request an independent expert’s opinion on whether Giudicelli’s hypothetical re-election would bring the ITF into disrepute. The decision underscored the need for clearer and more consistent governance standards within the ITF, suggesting a review of eligibility criteria for Board membership.
The case underscores the strict application of governance rules in sports organizations, particularly concerning ethical conduct and reputational risks. It also highlights the limitations of CAS’s interpretive power, as it cannot rewrite clear contractual terms, even if they lead to harsh outcomes. The final decision upheld the vacation of Giudicelli’s position but overturned the four-year ban, dismissing all other motions and emphasizing the importance of precise drafting in constitutional provisions.