CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11293 & CAS 2025/A/11306 & CAS 2025/A/11369 — Swiss Olympic & Stiftung Swiss Sport Integrity & Schweizerischer Turnverband v. [A.] & Stiftung Schweizer Sportgericht

"[A.] (Swiss Trampoline Coach)" · CAS declined jurisdiction over ethics appeals against a trampoline coach because she had never validly submitted to a CAS arbitration agreement.

What happened in [A.] (Swiss Trampoline Coach)

A trampoline coach employed by the Nordwestschweizerische Kunstturn- und Trampolinzentrum Liestal (NKL) faced allegations of ethics violations under the Swiss Olympic Ethics Statute. Swiss Sport Integrity (SSI) investigated and submitted a report to the Disciplinary Chamber (DK) in October 2023. On 6 March 2025, the Swiss Sports Tribunal (SSG) declined jurisdiction, finding neither temporal nor personal applicability of the Ethics Statute to the coach. Swiss Olympic, SSI, and the Swiss Gymnastics Federation (STV) each appealed to CAS. The coach contested CAS jurisdiction from the outset. CAS consolidated the three appeals and decided the jurisdiction question as a preliminary matter. Applying Swiss domestic arbitration law (Art. 353 ff. ZPO, not IPRG, because all parties were domiciled in Switzerland), the panel found no valid arbitration agreement binding the coach. The employment contract's reference to 'ethical guidelines' was insufficient to constitute submission to CAS arbitration; the Ethics Statute's personal scope required an express submission act that was absent; and mere attendance at competitions without documented accreditation terms did not suffice for coaches. CAS therefore declared itself without jurisdiction. The case matters because it clarifies the strict requirements for binding non-member coaches to sports arbitration clauses under Swiss domestic arbitration law.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11293

SSI opened an investigation on 22 March 2022 following reports received from 28 January 2022. SSI submitted its investigation report to the DK on 11 October 2023, requesting proceedings for violations of Arts. 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 of the Ethics Statute and Arts. 4 and 6 of the Ethics Charter. The DK opened ordinary proceedings on 23 October 2023 but expressed doubts about personal jurisdiction in January 2024. The SSG took over from the DK on 1 July 2024. On 6 March 2025, the SSG issued the challenged decision declining jurisdiction and ordering SSI to pay the coach a party indemnity of CHF 47,834.25 (incl. VAT and expenses). Swiss Olympic appealed on 28 March 2025 (CAS 2025/A/11293), SSI on 27 March 2025 (CAS 2025/A/11306), and STV on 17 April 2025 (CAS 2025/A/11369). The three proceedings were consolidated. CAS bifurcated the proceedings and decided jurisdiction as a preliminary issue.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11293

• CAS lacked jurisdiction because the coach never validly submitted to an arbitration agreement in favour of CAS, as required under Arts. 353 ff. ZPO applicable to a purely domestic Swiss arbitration.
• A generic employment contract reference to 'ethical guidelines' of Swiss Olympic and STV does not constitute submission to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the DK/SSG or to CAS arbitration, particularly where the Ethics Statute and its arbitration clause did not yet exist at the time of contract signature.
• The doctrine of 'double-relevant facts' applicable in state court proceedings does not apply in arbitration; all facts relevant to both jurisdiction and merits must be fully examined at the jurisdictional stage.
• The Ethics Statute cannot of its own force bind natural persons such as coaches; Art. 1.1 para. 5 of the Ethics Statute 2022 expressly requires Swiss Olympic and its member federations to ensure that such persons submit through membership or corresponding declarations.
• Mere factual participation in competitions as a coach, without documented accreditation or participation agreements, does not constitute a valid submission to a CAS arbitration clause, especially since the Ethics Statute 2025 expressly limits the competition-participation fiction to athletes, not coaches or employees.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The panel first established that the proceedings were domestic (all parties domiciled in Switzerland), making Arts. 353 ff. ZPO applicable rather than the IPRG. It then rejected the 'double-relevant facts' doctrine for arbitration, requiring full jurisdictional examination. Applying the Swiss Federal Tribunal's restrictive approach to waiver of state court access (citing BGer 4A 92/2025 of 4 July 2025), while acknowledging the more generous sports-arbitration case law (BGer 4A_548/2009, 4A_460/2008), the panel examined four alleged bases of submission. First, the employment contract's clause 3 reference to 'ethical guidelines' was held to address only substantive conduct obligations, not procedural submission to arbitration; the Ethics Statute's disciplinary system did not exist when the contract was signed in December 2020, and the contract's dispute resolution clause pointed to state courts in Liestal. Second, the Ethics Statute's personal scope provisions require an affirmative submission act that was absent. Third, competition attendance without accreditation documentation was insufficient, and the Ethics Statute 2025 expressly excludes coaches from the athlete-participation fiction. Fourth, the SSG's own appeal notice pointing to CAS could not unilaterally create jurisdiction the coach had never accepted. The panel rejected arguments based on dynamic referral, 'sphere of control', and practical considerations, finding no initial submission to any arbitral disciplinary system from which a dynamic referral could operate.

Why [A.] (Swiss Trampoline Coach) matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award establishes that a generic employment contract reference to 'ethical guidelines' of a sports federation is insufficient to constitute a valid arbitration agreement binding a non-member coach to CAS jurisdiction under Swiss domestic arbitration law. It confirms that the 'double-relevant facts' doctrine does not apply in arbitration proceedings, that the Ethics Statute requires an affirmative submission act for coaches and employees, and that mere competition attendance without documented accreditation terms cannot substitute for that act. The award draws a clear distinction between the more generous dynamic-referral jurisprudence applicable to federation members and the stricter requirements for non-member employees.

Cases cited in this award

BGE 128 III 50 vom 16. Oktober 2001 BGE 121 III 495 vom 20. Dezember 1995 BGer 4A 92/2025 vom 4. Juli 2025 BGer 4A_460/2008 vom 9. Januar 2009 BGer 4A_548/2009 vom 20. Januar 2010 CAS 2025/A/11398 (Schiedsspruch vom 21. Januar 2026)

Frequently asked questions about [A.] (Swiss Trampoline Coach)

Why did CAS find it had no jurisdiction in the Swiss trampoline coach ethics case?

CAS held that the coach had never validly submitted to a CAS arbitration agreement. Her employment contract's reference to 'ethical guidelines of Swiss Olympic and STV' in clause 3 was interpreted as a substantive conduct obligation only, not as submission to arbitral disciplinary jurisdiction. The Ethics Statute and its CAS appeal clause did not exist when the contract was signed in December 2020, and the contract's own dispute resolution clause pointed to state courts in Liestal.

Does the 'double-relevant facts' doctrine apply in CAS arbitration proceedings under Swiss law?

No. The panel expressly confirmed, citing BGE 128 III 50 of 16 October 2001 and BGE 121 III 495 of 20 December 1995, that the doctrine of double-relevant facts — under which facts relevant to both jurisdiction and merits are deferred to the merits stage in state court proceedings — does not apply in arbitration. All facts relevant to jurisdiction must be fully examined at the jurisdictional stage.

Can a sports coach be bound by the Swiss Olympic Ethics Statute simply by coaching athletes at federation competitions?

Not automatically. The panel held that the Ethics Statute cannot bind natural persons such as coaches of its own force; Art. 1.1 para. 5 of the Ethics Statute 2022 requires Swiss Olympic and its member federations to ensure submission through membership or corresponding declarations. The Ethics Statute 2025 further clarifies that the competition-participation fiction applies only to athletes, not to coaches or employees, who must submit through a separate contractual act.

What is the significance of the SSG's own appeal notice pointing to CAS for the jurisdiction question?

The panel held that the SSG's appeal notice in the challenged decision of 6 March 2025, which directed parties to appeal to CAS under Art. 5.8 of the Ethics Statute, could not unilaterally create CAS jurisdiction that the coach had never accepted. The coach contested CAS jurisdiction at the first opportunity in all three proceedings, so no estoppel or implied consent could be inferred from the appeal notice.

Topics: Doping, ethics & governance at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.