The case CAS 2013/A/3052 involved a dispute between Miguel Sanchíz Jr., Fernando Samaniego, Franz Wever, and the Panamanian Handball Federation (the Appellants) against Camilo Amado, Augusto Batista, Ricardo Sasso, Ildefonso Lee, Alan Baitel, Ludgardis Arrue, Pedro Chaluje, Marcos Ostrander, Luis Pereira, and the Comité Olímpico de Panamá (COP) (the Respondents). The conflict arose from the election of the COP's board of directors in December 2012, which the Appellants contested, arguing violations of the Olympic Charter and COP statutes. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) had previously intervened to address governance issues, proposing a "Road Map" to ensure compliance with the Olympic Charter. This Road Map restricted participation in the General Assembly and elections to specific categories of members, such as IOC members, national federations affiliated with Olympic sports, and elected athlete representatives. Despite initial resistance from the COP, an Elective General Assembly (EGA) was held on November 30, 2012, approving new electoral regulations and scheduling another EGA for December 16, 2012, to elect the new board. The Appellants challenged these actions in Panamanian courts and later appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS panel, composed of José María Alonso Puig, Dirk-Reiner Martens, and Massimo Coccia, addressed three key issues. First, it affirmed the binding nature of the Olympic Charter on all National Olympic Committees (NOCs), taking precedence over conflicting provisions in an NOC's statutes. Second, it clarified that internal legal remedies must be exhausted before appealing to CAS, provided they are effectively available and offer a fair opportunity to challenge the contested decision. Third, it ruled that the time limit for filing an appeal begins only when the appellant has sufficient knowledge of the decision. The panel's decision reinforced the supremacy of the Olympic Charter and outlined procedural requirements for appeals, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal principles.
The dispute centered on the validity of the November 30 and December 16, 2012, EGAs. The Appellants argued that the 2002 COP Statutes, which they claimed were approved by the IOC, governed the process and allowed for Permanent Members' participation. They contended that the November EGA excluded these members and non-Olympic sports federations, rendering it invalid. The Respondents, however, argued that the 1970 Statutes, amended in 2006 and approved by the Panamanian Ministry of Government and Justice, were the only valid framework. They claimed the 2002 Statutes violated the Olympic Charter by granting excessive voting power to Permanent Members. The CAS panel ultimately upheld the validity of the 1970 Statutes, finding that the 2002 Statutes lacked proper approval under Panamanian law.
Regarding jurisdiction and admissibility, the Respondents argued that the Appellants failed to exhaust internal remedies and filed the appeal late. The panel ruled that the appeal was admissible, as the Appellants had no effective means to challenge the decision internally and the time limit for filing only began upon proper notification. On the merits, the panel upheld the validity of both EGAs, noting that the Appellants had participated in the November EGA and agreed to its decisions, including the call for the December EGA. The absence of certain members in the December EGA did not invalidate it, as they were not considered members under the 1970 Statutes. The panel dismissed the appeal, affirming the validity of the EGAs and their decisions, and lifted the provisional measures previously granted. The case highlighted the tension between national sports governance and international regulatory frameworks, emphasizing the need for compliance with overarching Olympic standards.