The case involves a dispute between the Ukrainian Figure Skating Federation (UFSF) and the International Skating Union (ISU) regarding sanctions imposed on Ukrainian judge Natalia Kruglova by the ISU Disciplinary Commission (DC). The allegations stemmed from the 2012 "Cup of Nice" event, where Ms. Kruglova was accused of violating the ISU Code of Ethics by attempting to influence another judge, Diana Stevens, to favor a Ukrainian skating pair. The ISU DC investigated the complaint, provisionally suspended Ms. Kruglova, and later found her guilty after a hearing where Ms. Stevens testified. Ms. Kruglova did not attend the hearing due to visa issues and illness but later submitted a written statement. The ISU DC imposed a two-year suspension on Ms. Kruglova and ordered the UFSF to cover the hearing costs. The UFSF and Ms. Kruglova appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the charges were unjustified.
The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators from Sweden, Russia, and Switzerland, examined the case de novo, meaning it independently reviewed the evidence and legal conclusions. The panel noted it could rehear witnesses but relied on the ISU DC's findings due to the absence of new evidence or procedural flaws. The UFSF contended that the DC's decision implied negligence in their nomination process, giving them standing to appeal. The ISU maintained the sanctions were justified based on testimony and evidence. Ms. Kruglova later withdrew her appeal due to personal and health reasons, leaving the UFSF as the sole appellant. The CAS ruled her appeal inadmissible due to lack of proper representation documentation.
The key issue was whether the UFSF had standing to challenge the sanctions against Ms. Kruglova, not just the costs. The panel determined the UFSF, as an "Interested ISU Member," had a legitimate interest in contesting the entire decision, as it indirectly affected their reputation and responsibilities. The dispute centered on conflicting testimonies between Ms. Stevens and Ms. Kruglova. Ms. Stevens claimed Ms. Kruglova attempted to influence her, while Ms. Kruglova denied the allegations. The panel considered holding a hearing but proceeded without one due to Ms. Kruglova's absence. The ISU DC had found Ms. Stevens credible, seeing no motive for her to falsely accuse Ms. Kruglova. The CAS panel upheld the ISU DC's decision on the sanctions, dismissing challenges to the credibility of witnesses like Mr. Jeroen Prins and Mr. Peter Krick.
Regarding costs, the ISU DC had imposed all hearing costs on the UFSF, totaling CHF 5,376.47. The panel found this decision unjust, as the UFSF had been passive in the proceedings, which primarily concerned Ms. Kruglova. The panel partially granted the UFSF's appeal, reforming the cost allocation to require the UFSF to bear only half the costs. The panel dismissed the appeal on other points, confirming the sanctions against Ms. Kruglova. The final ruling adjusted the cost allocation and concluded without additional costs except for the retained court office fee. The case highlights procedural complexities in sports arbitration, including witness credibility, jurisdictional issues, and the rights of national federations to contest decisions affecting their reputation. It underscores the importance of ethical conduct in judging and the accountability mechanisms within international sports federations.