Portuguese Padel Federation v. International Padel Federation (IPF)

At a glance

Parties

Portuguese Padel Federation (PPF) and its President, Ricardo Da Silva Oliveira, v. International Padel Federation (IPF)

Case no.

CAS 2021/A/8058

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal arbitration under the CAS Code; seat Lausanne

Treaty

Arbitration clause in Article 31 of the IPF By-laws; IPF regulations apply, with Swiss law as the subsidiary law

Tribunal

José Juan Pintó Sala (President), Joao Nogueira Da Rocha, Luigi Fumagalli

Sector

Sport (padel); disciplinary

Outcome

Appeal partially upheld (9 August 2022). The violation was confirmed, but the PPF's fine was cut from EUR 10,000 to EUR 5,000. The public warning to the PPF President was kept.

Amount

Fine imposed by the IPF: EUR 10,000. Fine imposed by CAS: EUR 5,000. Public funds at issue: up to EUR 50,000 and EUR 40,000 under two IPDJ contracts.

The dispute

The PPF applied to the Instituto Portugués do Desporto e Juventude (IPDJ), a Portuguese government body, for public funds to organise international padel events in Portugal in 2019. In its application forms it stated that the IPF would co-organise the events. In July and August 2019 the IPDJ signed contracts with the PPF granting up to EUR 50,000 for the European Padel Championship and up to EUR 40,000 for the EuroAmerica Padel Cup. Both events were in fact co-organised with the European Padel Association (EPA), and the IPF was never told of the contracts. The IPF disciplinary bodies fined the PPF EUR 10,000 and publicly warned its President for breaching Articles 18, 20(F) and 20(N) of the IPF Sport Discipline Regulation (SDR). On appeal, the PPF and its President argued that: the IPF disciplinary bodies were not validly appointed and were not independent; the time limits in Article 57 SDR had expired; the IPF reference was an innocent administrative mistake that did not affect the funding; they were being sanctioned twice for the same facts; and the sanction was disproportionate.

Key holdings

1. The procedural objections failed. Any procedural flaws before the IPF were cured by the CAS hearing de novo. The Panel followed CAS 2020/A/6728 and held that the illegitimacy of the IPF disciplinary bodies and their lack of independence had not been proven. ¶¶ 99–101, 111–112
2. Article 57 SDR sets two time limits. The first is 15 days to resolve a claim or open proceedings; the IPF can also open proceedings ex officio at any time. The second is 30 days to conclude proceedings, and it runs only once the investigatory phase has closed. The IPF complied with both. Waiting for the award in CAS 2020/A/6728 was lawful, and the appellants' right of defence was respected. ¶¶ 102–110
3. The request for production of the IPF disciplinary file was properly refused as a fishing expedition. Twice invited, the appellants did not identify the documents or show that they existed and were relevant under Article R44.3(1) of the CAS Code. Without exceptional circumstances, the request could not be granted at the hearing. ¶ 104
4. The Panel did not accept the administrative-mistake explanation. The PPF knew that naming the IPF as co-organiser was important to obtain the funds. Deliberately misusing the IPF's name to obtain public funds is a notorious public act that violates the dignity and decorum of the sport under Article 20(F) SDR. The President is responsible under Article 20(N)(1). ¶¶ 122–124
5. The IPF did not explain how it fixed the fine at EUR 10,000 within the range of EUR 3,000 to 30,000. For that reason the usual deference did not apply. This offence was closely connected to, but less serious than, the EPA co-organisation already sanctioned with EUR 10,000 and confirmed in CAS 2020/A/6728. The fine was therefore disproportionate and was reduced to EUR 5,000. ¶¶ 127–132
6. Operative part: the appeal is partially upheld and the Appeal Committee decision of 18 May 2021 is set aside. The PPF is fined EUR 5,000 under Article 20(F) SDR, and Ricardo Da Silva Oliveira receives a public warning under Article 20(N)(1). The paragraphs on costs are redacted in the published award. Operative part

Procedural history

1. 26 July and 5 August 2019The PPF and the IPDJ sign funding contracts for the European Padel Championship and the EuroAmerica Padel Cup.
2. 11 March 2020The IPF Competition and Discipline Committee opens an investigation.
3. 3 August 2020The Committee opens disciplinary proceedings against the PPF and its President.
4. 6 April 2021First Decision: the PPF is fined EUR 10,000 and its President receives a public warning.
5. 18 May 2021The IPF Appeal Committee dismisses the PPF's appeal.
6. 14 June 2021The PPF files its Statement of Appeal with CAS.
7. 10 August 2021The Panel is constituted, after Michele Bernasconi declined his appointment following a challenge.
8. 28 October 2021Hearing held in Lausanne.
9. 9 August 2022Award: the appeal is partially upheld and the fine is reduced to EUR 5,000.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• José Juan Pintó Sala President
• João Nogueira da Rocha Co-arbitrator — appointed by the claimant
• Luigi Fumagalli Co-arbitrator — appointed by the respondent (nominated after Michele Bernasconi declined his appointment on 6 July 2021 following the PPF's challenge)

For the claimant

Carlos André Dias Ferreira

For the respondent

Stefano Laporta

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• padel
• disciplinary sanction
• IPF Sport Discipline Regulation
• Article 20(F) SDR
• dignity and decorum of the sport
• public funds
• IPDJ
• European Padel Association
• time limits Article 57
• de novo review
• proportionality of sanction
• fishing expedition
• document production Article R44.3
• independence of disciplinary bodies
• ne bis in idem
• fine reduced

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.