Link copied to clipboard!
2010 Skiing / Ski Disciplinary Dismissed English Appeal Procedure

Parties & Representatives

Decision Information

Decision Date: June 14, 2010

Case Summary

The case centers on a challenge to the independence of arbitrator Mr. Olli Rauste, appointed by the Finnish Ski Association and athlete Aino-Kaisa Saarinen in an appeal against a decision by the International Ski Federation (FIS). The FIS contested Mr. Rauste's appointment, citing his prior role as counsel for another athlete, Ms. Kaisa Varis, in a 2003 doping case where FIS was the sanctioning body. The FIS argued this created legitimate doubts about his impartiality. The Appellants countered that the 2003 case was handled by the Finnish Ski Association, not FIS, and occurred seven years earlier, with no bearing on the current dispute. They also noted that the relevant CAS rule prohibiting arbitrators from acting as counsel (Article S18) came into effect after Mr. Rauste's involvement in the 2003 case. Mr. Rauste clarified his role in the earlier case was minimal and emphasized Finnish legal principles did not support bias claims. The Respondent maintained concerns due to the similarity of the cases.

The challenge was referred to the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS), which evaluated it under Article R34 of the CAS Code, allowing challenges based on legitimate doubts over an arbitrator's independence. The ICAS Board rejected the FIS's challenge, ruling Mr. Rauste could continue as arbitrator. It found no conflict, as the prior case involved different athletes and legal contexts, and the FIS was not directly involved. The Board stressed that challenges must be based on objective facts, not subjective suspicions, and prior unrelated involvement does not automatically disqualify an arbitrator. The decision was final and not subject to appeal, reinforcing the principle that impartiality must be assessed case-by-case without undue disqualifications. The outcome sets a precedent for handling similar challenges in CAS proceedings, balancing fairness with avoiding unnecessary conflicts of interest. The case underscores the importance of objective evaluations in maintaining trust in arbitration processes.

Share This Case