The case involves an appeal by K., an athletics coach from Turkey, against a decision by the Turkish Athletics Federation (TAF) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). K. was sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility for anti-doping rule violations related to administering and trafficking prohibited substances. The appeal was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), raising questions about jurisdiction and admissibility. The central issue was whether CAS had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, given that K. was not an International-Level Athlete or support personnel as defined by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). The IAAF rules specify that appeals involving non-international-level athletes should be heard by an independent and impartial body established by the national federation, in this case, Turkey. The Turkish Anti-Doping Regulations (TADR) provided for appeals to be heard by the Sports General Directorate (SGD) Arbitration Board, not CAS.
WADA objected to CAS jurisdiction, arguing that the appeal should be dismissed since the TADR did not grant CAS authority over such cases. The appellant contended that the SGD Arbitration Board did not meet the required standards of independence and impartiality, but the panel found no evidence to support this claim. The panel emphasized that CAS jurisdiction must be explicitly provided for in the national federation’s rules, and since TAF’s regulations did not include such a clause, CAS lacked jurisdiction. The panel concluded that if an International Federation (such as the IAAF) finds that a national federation’s jurisdictional system is non-compliant, it must take measures to ensure compliance. Until then, appeals must be resolved under domestic law through state courts if necessary.
The appellant argued that the SGD Arbitration Board lacked independence and impartiality, as required by IAAF Rule 42.4, and thus sought to bypass it by appealing directly to CAS. However, the panel rejected this argument, stating that the absence of an independent national appeal body does not automatically grant CAS jurisdiction. The panel underscored that CAS only has jurisdiction if explicitly provided by the statutes or regulations of the relevant sports body or through a specific arbitration agreement. Since the Turkish anti-doping regulations did not provide for a direct appeal to CAS in national-level cases, the panel concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The panel also noted that any issues regarding the independence of the national appeal body should be addressed by the IAAF, not CAS.
The ruling, dated November 17, 2015, formally stated that CAS had no authority to adjudicate the appeal against the TAF Penal Board's decision. All other claims and requests for relief were dismissed. The decision was based on the panel's assessment that further factual investigation into the notice of the decisions and their receipt was unnecessary given the jurisdictional conclusion. The case underscores the importance of clear jurisdictional clauses in national federation regulations to enable CAS involvement and highlights the tension between ensuring fair appeal mechanisms for athletes and adhering to the jurisdictional limits set by sports governing bodies. The outcome reaffirms that CAS cannot override the absence of an arbitration agreement based solely on procedural fairness concerns.