The Jury has issued a decision in ACJ 005/006. Following is an excerpt from the Jury's decision giving answers to key questions posed in the +39 applications:

9. With regard to the claims by +39 concerning the individual athletes, the Jury considers that Article 21 of the Protocol does not confer jurisdiction on the Jury to resolve disputes between a Competitor and an employee athlete. Such disputes are required to be dealt with between the Competitor and athlete pursuant to whatever contractual jurisdiction arrangements they may have put in place. For the same reasons, the Jury does not have jurisdiction to order preliminary relief against an employee athlete.

10. The Jury does not consider it is required, nor has the power, to authorise a Competitor such as +39 to issue proceedings in a court or other tribunal. A Competitor is permitted to do so in the particular circumstances provided for in Article 22.3 of the Protocol. This includes claims as between Competitors and their employees including claims for breach of confidentiality.

11. The Jury considers it has jurisdiction to hear a dispute between Competitors pursuant to Article 21.4(b) of the Protocol where it relates to their participation in the Event as defined in the Protocol. This would include jurisdiction to consider the claim by +39 against El Reto concerning fair play and sportsmanship with reference to the Deed of Gift, Articles 2 and 11.2(a) of the Protocol and the Racing Rules of Sailing.

12. Recognising the principles embodied in Article 22.1 of the Protocol whereby the award of the Jury is final and binding and that Article 22.2 of the Protocol prohibits the issue of proceedings or suit in any court or other tribunal against the parties as identified in that Article, it is not the Jury’s intention or desire to have disputes that may arise in the context of the America’s Cup determined other than by the Jury, except in the very limited circumstances provided for in Article 22.3 of the Protocol.

13. If +39 chose to issue proceedings against the athletes concerned under, for example Articles 22.3(a) and (d), matters arising in those proceedings are likely to have a significant bearing on the claims by +39 for breaches of fair play and sportsmanship.

If, for example, proceedings were issued in an Italian court, which in this case is the parties’ chosen jurisdiction and it is determined that the contractual arrangements were either of no effect under Italian law or had been properly terminated, this is likely to lead to a different perspective than if the reverse was the case.