The case revolves around Emilios Papathanasiou, a world-class sailor, who appealed against a decision made by the International Jury during the 2006 Finn Gold Cup regatta in Split, Croatia. Papathanasiou was disqualified from Race 6 after being protested for alleged breaches of the Racing Rules of Sailing (RRS), including Rule 11 (On The Same Tack, Overlapped), Rule 14 (Avoiding Contact), and Rule 18.1(a). The protest claimed his boat made improper maneuvers leading to contact with another boat. Despite testimony from the other sailor involved, Gabor Keresztes, who stated he was unaware of any collision or breach, the jury disqualified Papathanasiou. He challenged the decision, citing bias due to prior interactions with jury member Bill Bell, but the jury chairman allowed Bell to participate. The jury ruled Papathanasiou failed to keep clear of the other boat.
Papathanasiou sought to reopen the hearing with new evidence from another competitor, Marko Colic, who claimed he did not witness any contact. The jury rejected this, deeming it neither significant nor new. Papathanasiou then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the jury violated due process and fairness, misapplied racing rules, and acted in bad faith. He sought annulment of the disqualification and reinstatement of his race points. The International Sailing Federation (ISAF) opposed the appeal, arguing CAS lacked jurisdiction over disputes governed by the RRS. ISAF maintained that Rule 3(c) of the RRS only permits CAS appeals for non-rule-related matters, such as eligibility disputes, and that jury decisions are final under the RRS. The Hellenic Yachting Federation supported Papathanasiou, alleging jury partiality.
The jurisdictional issue centered on whether Papathanasiou’s claims fell outside the RRS, allowing CAS intervention. He argued that due process violations invoked higher principles of justice, such as the right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights. ISAF countered that Rule 3(c) was not intended to override the finality of jury decisions, which are considered "field of play" decisions. The CAS panel examined whether the claims related to matters determined under the RRS or were outside its scope. It concluded that all grounds of appeal related to the RRS, meaning CAS lacked jurisdiction under Rule 3(c). The panel distinguished this case from prior CAS precedents, noting that ISAF’s Article 4 assigned exclusive jurisdiction to English courts for disputes under its regulations unless specific provisions (e.g., anti-doping rules) designated CAS.
The panel ruled that Papathanasiou’s appeal did not qualify as a matter outside the RRS, and CAS had no jurisdiction to review the jury’s decision. It dismissed the appeal and the Hellenic Yachting Federation’s request for intervention. The panel clarified that its decision should not be interpreted as allowing international juries to operate without accountability for grossly unfair or illegal decisions, but such disputes must be challenged in competent courts under ISAF’s legal framework. The panel noted the lack of clarity in ISAF’s drafting, which led Papathanasiou to mistakenly believe he could appeal to CAS, and held ISAF partially responsible for this misunderstanding. The decision underscores the importance of clear regulatory drafting to avoid jurisdictional confusion and ensure fair access to dispute resolution mechanisms. The CAS ultimately declared it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal, reinforcing the finality of international jury rulings in sailing competitions.