The case revolves around a dispute between the Federació Catalana de Patinatge (FCP) and the International Roller Sports Federation (FIRS) concerning the provisional and definitive affiliation of the FCP with the FIRS. The FCP, based in Barcelona, sought to represent Catalan roller sports teams in international competitions under Catalonia's banner. In March 2004, the FIRS Central Committee granted the FCP provisional membership, allowing Catalan teams to participate in FIRS events. However, the Spanish national roller sports federation (RFEP) appealed this decision, leading the FIRS Central Committee to revoke the FCP's provisional status in a secret ballot vote without hearing either party. The FCP appealed to the FIRS Congress, but the Congress upheld the decision in a non-secret vote, despite requests for secrecy from member federations. The FCP then filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing procedural violations and seeking reinstatement of its provisional membership and damages.
The CAS initially confirmed its jurisdiction, citing FIRS statutes requiring member disputes to be resolved by CAS and the FIRS president's initial acceptance of arbitration. The CAS also noted the dispute's arbitrability under Swiss law due to its financial implications. On the merits, the CAS ruled that while the FIRS Central Committee had the authority to revoke provisional membership, the Congress's refusal to hold a secret ballot violated FIRS statutes, potentially affecting the vote's outcome. However, the CAS declined to override the Congress's decision on affiliation, respecting the autonomy of sports federations. The CAS annulled the Congress's decision due to procedural violations but did not reinstate the FCP's provisional membership, leaving the matter for the FIRS to reconsider in compliance with its statutes.
The case highlights the balance between procedural fairness and the self-governance of international sports bodies. The CAS emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules, such as conducting a secret ballot when requested, and the limited role of arbitral bodies in overriding internal federation decisions. The FCP was granted the right to challenge the FIRS decisions due to its prior provisional membership and procedural entitlements under lex sportiva. The CAS ordered the FIRS Congress to reconvene within nine months to reconsider the FCP's membership application, ensuring compliance with procedural requirements and applying the rules in force at the time of the original decision. The FCP's claim for damages was rejected due to insufficient evidence. The ruling underscores the necessity of procedural fairness in sports governance while respecting the autonomy of federations in making membership decisions.