Skip to main content
International Arbitration Forum

Vevey Riviera Basket v. Swiss Basketball

Case summary

At a glance

Parties
Vevey Riviera Basket (Switzerland) v. Swiss Basketball (Fédération Suisse de Basketball)
Case no.
CAS 2024/A/10844
Forum and rules
Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal arbitration procedure (expedited) under the Code of Sports-related Arbitration. Seat: Lausanne. Part 3 of the Swiss Civil Procedure Code applies.
Tribunal
Isabelle Fellrath (Sole Arbitrator)
Sector
Basketball; club licensing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. The refusal of the club's A and B licences for the 2024-2025 season and its relegation were confirmed. Operative part notified on 1 November 2024; reasoned award dated 3 December 2024.
Amount
No money claim on the merits. The decision under appeal charged the club CHF 6,000 for the costs of the opposition proceeding. Swiss Basketball sought at least CHF 13,000 for its legal costs. The award's costs paragraphs are redacted in the published text.

The dispute

Vevey Riviera Basket (VRB), a Swiss basketball club, applied for an A licence to play in the Swiss Basketball League (SBL) in 2024-2025. Its licence for 2023-2024 had been granted on 7 September 2023 subject to strict conditions and deadlines. Swiss Basketball's licensing body (CONCECG) refused the A and B licences on 21 May 2024 and relegated the club. The grounds were an incomplete file, unpaid invoices owed to Swiss Basketball and breach of agreed payment plans. The Opposition Commission confirmed the refusal on 9 August 2024, after the club failed to produce a clean debt-enforcement extract; the extract showed enforcement proceedings totalling CHF 199,206. VRB argued that the 2023 conditions were unlawful and unenforceable, and that missed deadlines could lead only to fines, not to refusal of a licence. It also relied on later payments and a personal funding pledge by its president, and claimed unequal treatment compared with other clubs that received conditional licences. Swiss Basketball argued that the review was limited to the facts at the date of the opposition decision, that the burden of proof lay on the club, and that the licensing directive DL 206 had been applied correctly.

Key holdings

  1. CAS has jurisdiction under Article 17.4.1 of Swiss Basketball's Statutes. Jurisdiction was not contested and was confirmed by the parties' signature of the procedural order. The appeal is admissible: it was filed in time and internal remedies were exhausted. ¶¶ 71–78
  2. The rule that written witness statements must be filed with the appeal brief or answer does not apply to party statements. Any properly authorised party representative may attend and speak at the hearing. The club's auditor, Asmir Selimovic, and the official who signed the decisions, Martine Rouiller, were therefore admitted as party representatives. ¶¶ 86, 89
  3. The right to be heard and equality of arms apply in expedited proceedings and do not give way to speed. Extreme urgency is to be handled by provisional measures. Postponing the hearing was justified because the answer and 34 exhibits were filed only days before it. ¶ 94
  4. New exhibits submitted by the club minutes before the hearing were excluded as late under Article R56 of the Code. There were no exceptional circumstances, and the parties had agreed to an expedited procedure. ¶¶ 98–99
  5. A CAS panel reviews de novo, but only within the scope of the dispute before the previous instance. Under Article 15.6 of DL 206, the licence conditions must be met on the date of the opposition decision. The club relied on facts arising after that decision (false nova), so the Sole Arbitrator assessed the facts as they stood on 9 August 2024. The later settlement conditions fell outside the scope of the appeal. ¶¶ 104–107
  6. The burden of proof lies only on the club. Swiss Basketball's past leniency does not entitle the club to a continuing exception. The licence conditions imposed reflect the requirements and deadlines of DL 206 and are legitimate. ¶¶ 113–117
  7. The conditions were not met at the relevant date, even with Swiss Basketball's support. Equal treatment did not require Swiss Basketball to perpetuate temporary exceptions to DL 206; doing so would itself create unequal treatment. The contested decision was well-founded and the appeal was dismissed in full. ¶¶ 118–121; operative part

Procedural history

  1. 7 September 2023The Opposition Commission grants VRB an A licence for 2023-2024. It attaches conditions and fixed, non-extendable deadlines for the 2024-2025 licence process.
  2. 14 December 2023VRB applies for an SBL licence for 2024-2025.
  3. 21 May 2024CONCECG refuses the A and B licences and relegates VRB.
  4. 7 June 2024VRB files an opposition with the Opposition Commission.
  5. 9 August 2024The Opposition Commission rejects the opposition and confirms the refusal and relegation. It charges VRB CHF 6,000 in costs. The decision is notified on 22 August and received by VRB's counsel on 23 August 2024.
  6. 30 August 2024VRB files its statement of appeal with CAS, received on 3 September 2024. The operative part of the award refers to the appeal as filed on 20 August 2024.
  7. September 2024Settlement talks fail. On 20 September 2024 Swiss Basketball declares definitively that it will not pursue conciliation.
  8. 14 October 2024Sole Arbitrator Isabelle Fellrath appointed.
  9. 30 October 2024Hearing by videoconference.
  10. 1 November 2024Operative part of the award notified: appeal dismissed.
  11. 3 December 2024Reasoned award issued.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by
  • Isabelle Fellrath Sole arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the institution
For the claimant
Nathalie Bürgisser Scheurlen · Stéphane Rychen
For the respondent
Serge Vittoz

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

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

Case ID
CAS 2024/A/10844
Claimant
Vevey Riviera Basket
Respondent
Swiss Basketball
Documents

Procedure: Appeal
Sport: Basketball
Matter: Eligibility (except nationality)
Outcome: Dismissed
Panel: Isabelle Fellrath
Source: Court of Arbitration for Sport case database.