The case revolves around George Yerolimpos, a former member of the Executive Committee of the World Karate Federation (WKF) and the European Karate Federation (EKF), who appealed disciplinary sanctions imposed by the WKF. The dispute began with emails Yerolimpos sent, which the WKF deemed defamatory, leading to his provisional suspension as WKF Secretary General in August 2013. Later, the WKF Executive Committee permanently removed him from this position. In October 2013, the WKF Disciplinary Tribunal suspended him for six months for violating his duty of loyalty, particularly after he requested financial information from the WKF President and shared it with the membership. Further disciplinary proceedings in November 2013 resulted in a one-year suspension in April 2014 for registering the WKF domain under his name and failing to return WKF materials.
Yerolimpos appealed the initial six-month suspension to the WKF Appeal Tribunal, which upheld the decision in February 2014. He then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in February 2014, also seeking provisional measures to attend an EKF meeting. CAS rejected this request, noting the WKF had already agreed to his attendance, but the subsequent one-year suspension barred his participation. In April 2014, Yerolimpos appealed the second suspension to CAS, challenging the WKF Appeal Tribunal's independence and effectiveness. CAS initially questioned its jurisdiction due to the pending internal appeal but left the final decision to the Panel.
The core issue was whether Yerolimpos exhausted all internal remedies before appealing to CAS, as required by WKF Statutes and the CAS Code. Yerolimpos argued the 2005 WKF Disciplinary and Legal Rules (DLR) applied, which lacked provisions for additional internal appeals, while the WKF contended the 2008 DLR, introducing an Appeal Tribunal, was valid. Yerolimpos claimed the 2008 amendments were improperly adopted, citing missing documentation and inconsistencies like signatures from absent committee members. The WKF maintained the 2008 rules were enforceable, rendering the CAS appeal premature.
The CAS Panel found Yerolimpos's arguments unconvincing, noting he failed to prove the 2008 DLR's invalidity. A document signed by most Executive Committee members supported the 2008 rules' adoption, even if it lacked specific meeting details. The Panel also dismissed claims of bias or inefficiency in the WKF's disciplinary process, emphasizing the need to exhaust internal remedies before CAS intervention. The Panel concluded CAS lacked jurisdiction due to unexhausted remedies, dismissing Yerolimpos's appeal.
The case highlights tensions over procedural fairness, the independence of disciplinary bodies, and the applicability of federation rules in sports arbitration. It underscores the principle that athletes and officials must fully utilize internal federation processes before seeking external arbitration, even when the outcome is uncertain. The final ruling reaffirmed the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in sports governance.