The case involves a dispute arising from the disqualification of a boxer, referred to as M., during a match at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. M. was disqualified by the referee for delivering a low blow to his opponent, D. M. contested this decision, arguing that the blow was legal as it landed on the liver, an area permitted under the applicable boxing rules. The International Amateur Boxing Association (AIBA) rejected M.'s appeal, leading him to bring the matter before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc division. The CAS panel, composed of Luc Argand (President), Jan Paulsson, and Youssoupha Ndiaye, examined the case under the ad hoc rules established for the Olympics and Swiss private international law.
The central legal issue was whether the CAS had jurisdiction to review a decision based on the application of technical sporting rules. The panel acknowledged that in high-level sports, the enforcement of such rules often has significant financial, economic, or personal rights implications, making them potentially subject to judicial or arbitral review. However, the panel emphasized that purely technical decisions, like those made by referees during a match, generally fall outside the scope of legal scrutiny unless they violate legal principles, social regulations, or general legal norms. The panel noted that while some legal scholars argue for abolishing the distinction between technical rules and legal rules in sports, traditional doctrine maintains that judges should not interfere with the application of sporting regulations unless they infringe on personal or property rights.
In this case, the panel concluded that the referee's decision, upheld by AIBA, was a technical judgment within the federation's regulatory authority and did not involve any legal violations, abuse, or malice. The panel deferred to the expertise of the on-field officials, stating that the CAS ad hoc division was not in a position to second-guess such decisions absent evidence of arbitrariness or illegality. Consequently, the panel rejected M.'s claim, finding no grounds to overturn the disqualification. The decision underscores the balance between respecting the autonomy of sports federations in applying their rules and ensuring that such applications do not violate broader legal principles.