The case involves a dispute between the Turkish Chess Federation (TCF) and the European Chess Union (ECU) over the awarding of the 2013 European Youth Chess Championship and the 2013 European Senior Team Championship. The TCF appealed the ECU's decision to award the Youth Championship to the Montenegro Chess Federation and sought to have both tournaments reassigned to itself. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) reviewed the case and issued its ruling on 22 March 2012. The ECU, based in Switzerland, governs European chess tournaments and follows a structured bidding process outlined in its 2010 Tournament Rules. These rules require an inspector to evaluate bids based on criteria such as venue quality, accommodations, and organizational capabilities. The inspector submits a report to the ECU board, which then makes final decisions, referring close bids (with less than a 10% difference) to the General Assembly for a vote.
In April 2011, the ECU called for bids for its 2013 tournaments, with a deadline of 1 July 2011. The TCF submitted bids for both championships. The ECU appointed a single inspector, its Tournament Director, to evaluate the bids. Physical inspections were waived for some locations, including those proposed by the TCF, due to prior inspections, with maximum scores pre-assigned for venue and food. The inspector visited Budva, Montenegro, as its proposed venue differed from a previous tournament. The inspector’s report was presented to the ECU board in September 2011, which awarded the Youth Championship to Montenegro and referred the Senior Team Championship to the General Assembly due to close scoring between bids from Croatia, Germany, and Turkey.
The TCF challenged these decisions, alleging procedural flaws, including the non-publication of its bid annexes and potential bias in the inspection process. The CAS panel found no evidence of irregularities in the evaluation process. It ruled the TCF’s appeal inadmissible regarding the Senior Team Championship, as no final decision had been made at the time of the appeal. For the Youth Championship, the panel concluded that mere disappointment over losing the bid did not justify overturning the decision without proof of procedural errors or bias. The panel upheld the ECU’s decisions, emphasizing the fairness of the evaluation process.
The TCF also raised concerns about the inspection process, alleging bias and procedural irregularities, including the appointment of a single inspector and interactions between the inspector and a tournament organizer. The panel rejected these claims, finding the inspector experienced and the process compliant with ECU rules. It clarified that two inspectors were only required if more than three venues needed inspection, which was not the case. The panel dismissed the TCF’s objection that other bidders received maximum marks without inspection, noting this did not disadvantage the TCF, as their marks could not have exceeded the maximum.
Ultimately, the CAS panel concluded the TCF’s appeal lacked merit. It upheld the ECU’s procedures, including the referral to the General Assembly, and found no evidence of bias or unfairness. The ruling affirmed the integrity of the inspection and decision-making processes, dismissing the TCF’s claims in their entirety. The case underscores that unsuccessful bidders cannot challenge awards without demonstrating concrete flaws in the decision-making process.