The case involves Pamesa Valencia, a Spanish basketball club, appealing sanctions imposed by Euroleague Basketball after the club failed to appear for a scheduled game against Maccabi Elite Tel Aviv in Israel on March 25, 2004. Pamesa Valencia cited security concerns following the assassination of Hamas leader Sheik Yassin, which heightened fears of terrorist attacks in the region. The club requested a postponement or venue change, but Euroleague refused, asserting that adequate security measures were in place. When Pamesa Valencia did not attend the game, Euroleague imposed sanctions, including a forfeit loss (20-0), financial penalties, and compensation for associated costs.
Pamesa Valencia appealed the decision to Euroleague’s disciplinary bodies, arguing that the security situation justified their absence. However, both the Disciplinary Judge and the Appeals’ Judge ruled against the club, finding no "suitable justification" under Euroleague regulations. They noted that while the general situation in Israel was tense, there was no specific threat to the team, and other games had proceeded safely in Tel Aviv. The Appeals’ Judge also referenced Euroleague’s decision to hold the Final Four in Tel Aviv as evidence that the security situation was manageable.
Unsatisfied with the outcome, Pamesa Valencia appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS panel, composed of three arbitrators, reviewed the case based on written submissions and upheld Euroleague’s decision. The panel ruled that Pamesa Valencia had a contractual obligation to participate unless a valid excuse existed under Euroleague regulations. It agreed that general security concerns did not constitute a "suitable justification," especially since no specific threat to the team was demonstrated. The sanctions, including a fine of EUR 5,000 and compensation of EUR 1,000 for refereeing costs, were deemed appropriate.
The CAS dismissed Pamesa Valencia’s appeal, confirming the original decision and reinforcing the principle that clubs must fulfill their contractual obligations unless exceptional circumstances are proven. The ruling emphasized the narrow interpretation of "suitable justification" and highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of competitions. The case underscores the balance between security concerns and contractual duties in international sports, affirming that adequate safety measures generally suffice to ensure games proceed as scheduled. The decision serves as a reminder of the obligations teams have to participate in scheduled matches unless exceptional and verifiable circumstances prevent them from doing so.