Facts
Parties and procedural history:
The FC A. (appellant), a Swiss football club whose first men’s team played in Group 1 of the 1. Liga Classic of the Swiss Football Association (SFA) during the 2022/2023 season, challenged the result of a league match against FC B. The committee of the First League of the SFA dismissed the application for annulment of the match and for a 3:0 victory to be awarded to FC A. by decision of 18 October 2022. The appeal by FC A. against this decision was also dismissed by the Appeals Commission of the First League by decision of 28 November 2022.
FC A. then lodged an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and requested that the matter be decided by a sole arbitrator, Prof. Dr. Ulrich Haas. The CAS appointed him as sole arbitrator, and the arbitral award of 17 May 2023 dismissed the appeal. FC A. filed an appeal in civil matters with the Federal Supreme Court (4A_628/2023), which was dismissed by judgment of 14 February 2024.
On 31 May 2024, FC A. filed a petition for revision with the Canton of Vaud Cantonal Court against the arbitral award of 17 May 2023. It sought the setting aside of the arbitral award and the referral of the matter back to the CAS for a new decision, claiming that it had only subsequently learned that the sole arbitrator, Prof. Dr. Ulrich Haas, did not reside in Switzerland, as required by the SFA Statutes, but in Germany. The Canton of Vaud Cantonal Court dismissed the petition for revision by decision of 3 February 2025.
FC A. then filed an appeal in civil matters with the Federal Supreme Court against this decision and sought the setting aside of the Canton of Vaud Cantonal Court’s judgment and the setting aside of the CAS arbitral award, as well as the referral of the matter back to the CAS or the lower court. The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal insofar as it was admissible.
Considerations
Language of the proceedings: The Federal Supreme Court first examined the question of the language of the proceedings. Pursuant to Art. 54(1) FSCA, federal court proceedings are normally conducted in the official language of the challenged decision. The challenged decision of the Canton of Vaud Cantonal Court was issued in French. However, the appellant requested that the proceedings be conducted in German, and the respondent expressly agreed to this request. In addition, the underlying arbitral award was drafted in German, and the previous appeal proceedings 4A_628/2023 were also conducted in German. In these circumstances, the joint request of the parties could be granted, and the proceedings conducted in German.
Admissibility of an appeal against a revision decision: The Federal Supreme Court confirmed that the decision of the Canton of Vaud Cantonal Court on the petition for revision against an arbitral award constitutes a final decision within the meaning of Art. 90 FSCA and is therefore subject to an appeal in civil matters to the Federal Supreme Court. This follows from Art. 356(1)(a) CPC in conjunction with Art. 396 CPC, since the CPC does not provide for finality in decisions on petitions for revision, unlike appeal decisions under Art. 390(2) CPC.
Requirement of a minimum value in dispute: The Federal Supreme Court held that an appeal against a revision decision of a cantonal court on an arbitral award is subject to the requirement of a minimum value in dispute under Art. 74(1) FSCA. This applies even though, in principle, no minimum value in dispute is required for appeals against arbitral awards to the Federal Supreme Court (Art. 77 FSCA). The reason for dispensing with the minimum value requirement in arbitral award appeals – namely, to avoid complete lack of state control over arbitral awards – does not apply here, since the higher cantonal court already acts as a state revision instance. It is therefore reasonable to subject revision decisions to review by the Federal Supreme Court only if a minimum value in dispute is reached. In the present case, the value in dispute was estimated at over CHF 30,000 and thus deemed to be met.
Grounds for revision and challenge application: FC A. argued that the arbitral award should be set aside because the sole arbitrator, Prof. Dr. Ulrich Haas, did not reside in Switzerland, as required by the SFA Statutes, but in Germany. This, it claimed, constituted a ground for…