The case involves an arbitration before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) between Silvio Danailov, Vladimir Ŝacotić, and Sava Stoisavlević (the Appellants) and the World Chess Federation (FIDE). The dispute arose from allegations of misconduct and financial mismanagement related to the organization of the European Youth Championships in Budva, Montenegro, in 2013. The Appellants, who held positions within the European Chess Union (ECU) and the Montenegro Chess Federation (MCF), were accused of breaching the FIDE Code of Ethics. The ECU and MCF filed complaints with the FIDE Ethics Commission (ETH), which asserted jurisdiction over the matter.
The Appellants challenged the ETH's jurisdiction, arguing the case lacked international implications as required under FIDE Statutes and that disputes should be resolved by CAS, not FIDE. The ETH ruled that the alleged violations—including unauthorized contract approvals and financial mismanagement—affected multiple national federations, meeting jurisdictional requirements. The CAS Panel confirmed the ETH's jurisdiction, noting the case had international implications and involved FIDE officials. It emphasized that CAS could not rule on the merits at this stage, as the ETH decision was procedural. The Panel upheld the joinder of cases, finding the complaints sufficiently related without prejudicing the Appellants' rights.
The Appellants sought to overturn the ETH's decision, while FIDE argued for a three-member panel due to the case's complexity. The CAS Panel dismissed procedural objections, including claims of insufficient time to prepare and violations of fair trial rights, noting the 14-day response period was reasonable. It also rejected arguments that the ETH lacked jurisdiction, clarifying that the FIDE Code of Ethics applied to the Appellants as officials of affiliated organizations. The Panel referenced the Menarini case to justify the ETH's dual role as investigator and adjudicator, provided decisions are subject to judicial review.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld the ETH's jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal, ordering the Appellants to bear arbitration costs. The decision reinforced the ETH's authority over cases with international ramifications and clarified procedural adherence in disciplinary proceedings. It underscored that jurisdictional prerequisites must be met and that procedural claims cannot be converted into substantive ones on appeal. The ruling affirmed the importance of centralized adjudication in international sports disputes when national mechanisms are absent or inadequate. The case concluded with the CAS issuing its final award on December 21, 2015.