The case involves a dispute between four Slovak sports federations—the Slovak Tennis Federation, Slovak Cycling Federation, Slovak Handball Federation, and Slovak Football Association—and the Slovak Olympic Committee (SOC), brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute arose from decisions made during the SOC's 44th General Assembly on November 24, 2012, including the approval of electoral regulations and the election of SOC officials. The appellants contested the validity of these decisions, arguing that the voting process violated the IOC Olympic Charter, particularly Article 28(3), which they claimed should grant voting majority to national sports federations affiliated with Olympic sports.
The appellants filed their appeal with CAS on December 14, 2012, seeking to annul the decisions and requesting a new decision-making process within 30 days. They also demanded compliance with the IOC Olympic Charter regarding voting rights. The SOC contested CAS jurisdiction, arguing that its statutes did not explicitly grant CAS authority over such disputes. The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators Romano Subiotto QC, Quentin Byrne-Sutton, and Vit Horacek, examined whether CAS had jurisdiction, emphasizing that arbitration requires voluntary and consensual submission. The panel ruled that CAS lacked jurisdiction because the SOC's statutes did not clearly establish consent to arbitration, and the dispute did not fall under the direct applicability of the IOC Olympic Charter.
The appellants further argued that jurisdiction could be derived from Article 61(2) of the IOC Olympic Charter, but the panel rejected this, stating that jurisdiction must be explicitly provided for in the SOC's statutes. The panel also examined Article 6(9) of the SOC Statutes, which allows appeals to CAS only for decisions originating from the Executive or Disciplinary Committees. Since the appealed decision did not stem from such a process, the panel concluded that CAS lacked jurisdiction. The decision reinforced the principle that arbitration clauses must be unambiguous to avoid compelling parties into arbitration against their will.
The case highlights the procedural and jurisdictional considerations in sports arbitration, particularly the need for clear statutory provisions granting CAS authority. The panel compared the SOC's statutes with those of other National Olympic Committees, such as the Swiss and German Olympic Associations, which explicitly provide for broader CAS jurisdiction. Ultimately, the panel dismissed the appeal, underscoring the importance of precise statutory language in determining the scope of arbitration. The ruling clarifies that CAS jurisdiction depends on the specific rules of the sports body involved, not external regulations like the IOC Olympic Charter. The decision serves as a reminder of the necessity for clear and explicit arbitration clauses in sports governance to ensure jurisdictional clarity and uphold the principles of international arbitration.