Revue - Les Cahiers de l'Arbitrage N°1 - 2024 - 56

SPÉCIAL « ARBITRAGE ET JEUX OLYMPIQUES »
of Sailing. 13
There was no apparent reason why the Applicants had not exhausted
its internal remedies and that therefore, the CAS AHD had no jurisdiction. 14
In CAS AHD OG 16/014 Karen Pavicic v. Federation Équestre Internationale
(FEI), the Panel noted that the Athlete had 30 days in which to bring an appeal
before the FEI Tribunal against the FEI Dressage Committee's Decision dated
17 July 2016 and filed an appeal only on 2 August 2016 directly to CAS AHD. 15
The Panel found that the exception provided for in Article 1 of the Ad Hoc Rules
applies to urgent cases, where the urgency is outside the control of the parties and
did not apply in the case at hand considering the Athlete's inactivity for 2 weeks. 16
The matter in CAS AHD OG 20/013 Krystsina Tsimanouskaya v. National
Olympic Committee of Belarus, concerned a track and field athlete who had been
selected for the woman's 4x400 m relay to replace two other athletes barred from
travelling because of lacking doping tests. She complained on social media that she
was forced, without having been asked, to participate in a discipline she was not
specialized in. On 1 August 2021, she was withdrawn by the coaching team from
the participation in the women's 200m qualification scheduled on 2 August 2021
at 10.30 Tokyo Time for alleged medical reasons, while the athlete stated never
having been examined by a doctor.
On 2 August 2021 at 8.30am Tokyo Time, the athlete filed an urgent application
for stay of the decision and the president of the CAS AHD ruled ex parte in
application of Article 14 of the CAS Ad hoc Rules and issued an order dismissing
the athlete's urgent application for stay at 10.00 am on same day. 17
Within the deadline set, the athlete requested the CAS AHD to further proceed in
this matter and after an exchange of briefs, a hearing took place on 6 August 2021
and on 7 August 2021, the parties filed additional submissions and exhibits, in
particular on internal remedies.
The President of the CAS AHD had accepted in his order on the athlete's urgent
application for stay that, considering the application made 2 hours before the start
of the competition, the requirement to exhaust internal remedies would have made
any appeal to the CAS AHD ineffective. 18
However, the situation after the dismissal of the urgent application was different,
as held by the Sole Arbitrator. Indeed, the race had been run and the applicant
no longer present in Tokyo. 19
Hence, the situation was not urgent anymore and
considering that an appeal to the CAS Appeals Division is foreseen in the applicable
Belarus NOC Statute, there existed no exceptional circumstances that would have
13. CAS AHD OG 12/011 Russian Olympic Committee (ROC) v. International Sailing Federation
(ISF), award of 11 August 2012, paras. 8 and 9.
14. CAS AHD OG 12/011 Russian Olympic Committee (ROC) v. International Sailing Federation
(ISF), award of 11 August 2012, para. 10.
15. CAS AHD OG 16/014 Karen Pavicic v. Federation Équestre Internationale (FEI), award of
6 August 2016 (operative part of 2 August 2016), para. 5.6.
16. CAS AHD OG 16/014 Karen Pavicic v. Federation Équestre Internationale (FEI), award of
6 August 2016 (operative part of 2 August 2016), paras. 5.7 and 5.8.
17. CAS AHD OG 20/013 Krystsina Tsimanouskaya v. National Olympic Committee of Belarus,
award of 8 August 2021, para. 3.2.
18. CAS AHD OG 20/013 Krystsina Tsimanouskaya v. National Olympic Committee of Belarus,
award of 8 August 2021, para. 6.3.
19. CAS AHD OG 20/013 Krystsina Tsimanouskaya v. National Olympic Committee of Belarus,
award of 8 August 2021, para. 6.4.
54
The Paris Journal of International Arbitration 2024‑1

Revue - Les Cahiers de l'Arbitrage N°1 - 2024

Table des matières de la publication Revue - Les Cahiers de l'Arbitrage N°1 - 2024