2275 - Tribunal Arbitral du Sport / TAS

CAS 2010/A/2275CGF v. EGA,award of 20 June 20119is not sufficient to satisfy the Panel that it was notified on that date, since it could very wellhave been sent later.11. Only at the end of the Hearing did the EGA contend that the appealed decision had beenreceived by the Appellant at an earlier date, and it did so without producing any corroboratingevidence relating e.g. to the date of dispatch of the letter of notice.12. In addition, even if at such a late stage the EGA had offered any evidence, it would notnecessarily have been admissible on record since according to Article R56 of the CAS Code:“Unless the parties agree otherwise or the President of the Panel orders otherwise on the basis of exceptionalcircumstances, the parties shall not be authorized to supplement or amend their requests or their argument, norto produce new exhibits, nor to specify further evidence on which they intend to rely after the submission of theappeal brief and of the answer”.13. In that connection, it is noteworthy that the Appellant expressly objected to the admission ofthe EGA’s late submission on the issue of the timeliness of the Appeal and that the EGA didnot invoke any exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article R56 of the CASCode, nor is there any indication in the facts submitted to the Panel that such circumstancesexist.14. For the above reasons and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel deemsreasonable to consider that the Appellant only received notice of the EGA’s Resolution on 3November 2011, which means that the last day of the time limit was 24 November 2011. Asthe Statement of Appeal was filed on 17 November 2011, the Appeal was therefore timelyfiled.Merits15. The Panel finds that the Appeal is well-founded because the Resolution was either based oninvalid reasons and/or the Appellant’s fundamental right to be heard was clearly violated.16. First of all, the Panel finds that it is not clear from the EGA’s submissions and pleadings whatexactly were the reasons for the expulsion at the time it was decided.17. The Resolution itself does not expressly give any reasons. It merely refers to four attachmentsand states that the Resolution was submitted to the delegates on the basis of theseattachments.18. Two of the attachments concern the consequences of the bankruptcy proceedings, i.e. thedecision that the Appellant is deemed to have ceased its activities or (depending upon thetranslation) that it is dissolved. However, during the Hearing, the Respondent emphasizedrepeatedly that for the Respondent the Appellant’s bankruptcy only served as an “alarm bell”but was, in itself, no reason at all for the Appellant’s expulsion. If this is the case, however, it