The case involves an appeal filed by R. with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 23 August 2000, challenging his alleged non-selection for the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney. R. claimed that his coach informed him on 10 August 2000 that he would no longer represent Bosnia and Herzegovina in weightlifting at the Games, despite earlier assurances. He argued that no written decision or explanation was provided, though he had received a letter from the President of the Bosnian Weightlifting Federation confirming his selection. R. invoked Rule 74 of the Olympic Charter to establish CAS jurisdiction, which states that disputes related to the Olympic Games should be submitted exclusively to CAS. The appeal was sent to the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF), the National Olympic Committee of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Weightlifting Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, all of whom were asked to comment on CAS jurisdiction. The IOC and the Bosnian Olympic Committee denied any arbitration agreement with R., while the IWF clarified that R. did not qualify for the Games under the Olympic qualification rules and was never invited to participate.
The CAS examined whether there was a prima facie arbitration agreement to proceed with the appeal. Under Article R47 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration, an appeal can only be filed if the statutes or regulations of the relevant sports body provide for CAS jurisdiction or if there is a specific arbitration agreement. R. admitted he had no such agreement but relied on Rule 74 of the Olympic Charter. However, CAS had previously ruled in a similar case (CAS NAG 1) that only accredited Olympic athletes could invoke Rule 74, not those merely seeking participation. Since R. was not an accredited athlete, Rule 74 did not apply.
The Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division concluded that there was no valid arbitration agreement to initiate proceedings under Article R52 of the Code. As a result, CAS could not proceed with R.'s appeal. The decision was rendered without further arbitration, confirming that the jurisdictional requirements were not met. The case underscores the necessity of a clear arbitration agreement or statutory provision for CAS to hear disputes, particularly in matters of Olympic selection.