The case revolves around an appeal by Evgeny Nabokov, the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC), and the Russian Ice Hockey Federation (RIHF) against the International Ice Hockey Federation's (IIHF) decision to deny Nabokov eligibility to play for Russia in the 2002 Winter Olympics. The IIHF based its ruling on Bylaw 204 (1) c, which prohibits players from representing more than one country in IIHF championships unless they were under eighteen at the time of their first representation and meet specific conditions, including citizenship and participation in the new country's national competitions for two consecutive years. Nabokov had previously played for Kazakhstan in the 1994 World Championship, leading the IIHF to declare him ineligible for Russia.
The appellants argued that the bylaw should not apply retroactively, as it was introduced in 1998, four years after Nabokov's participation for Kazakhstan. They cited the Swiss Civil Code, which bars retroactive rule application unless explicitly stated. Additionally, they claimed Nabokov was never a Kazakh citizen, as he lacked a passport and was considered Russian under Russian law due to his parents' ethnicity. They also highlighted his service in the Russian army while playing for Dynamo Moscow. The appellants further contended that the IIHF's decision violated the Olympic Charter, which permits athletes to switch national representation under certain conditions, including a three-year waiting period after changing nationality. They argued that the IIHF's stricter rules conflicted with the Olympic Charter's minimum standards.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld the IIHF's decision, ruling that Bylaw 204 (1) c had been consistently interpreted to restrict eligibility changes to players under eighteen and that this interpretation was fair and did not violate the Olympic Charter. The panel emphasized that federations could impose stricter rules than the Olympic Charter, provided they did not contradict its minimum standards. It dismissed claims of unequal treatment, noting no evidence that the IIHF had previously allowed players over eighteen to switch national representation. The panel concluded that Nabokov's prior representation of Kazakhstan, regardless of citizenship disputes, bound him under IIHF rules, making him ineligible to play for Russia.
The CAS panel also rejected arguments based on a precedent from Austria’s highest civil court, which had ruled the IIHF bylaw invalid in a similar case, noting the decision was not binding and lacked detailed reasoning. While upholding the bylaw, the panel urged the IIHF to reconsider the rule’s potential harshness and modify it in the future. The appeal was dismissed, reaffirming the IIHF's authority to enforce its eligibility criteria and concluding the matter with a final and binding resolution. The ruling underscored the balance between international sports governance and the specific rules of individual federations, reinforcing the principle that federations have the right to set and enforce their own eligibility standards, provided they align with broader Olympic regulations.