The case involves Vladislav Oskner, a Russian aerobic gymnastics judge, who appealed against sanctions imposed by the Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG) for biased judging during the 2014 Aerobic Gymnastics World Championships. The FIG Disciplinary Commission found Oskner guilty of systematically favoring Russian gymnasts and imposed a 12-month ban from FIG activities. Oskner appealed to the FIG Arbitral Tribunal, but his appeal was declared inadmissible due to procedural issues. He had filed his appeal via email and DHL courier on July 3, 2015, but the email lacked the required officially certified electronic signature, and the DHL delivery, received on July 6, was deemed late under FIG rules, which mandate physical delivery to the FIG office by the deadline. The Tribunal upheld the Disciplinary Commission's decision, rejecting Oskner's argument that the sanction was invalid because it was issued outside the six-month period specified in the FIG General Judges Rules, ruling that the guideline was regulatory, not a strict deadline.
Oskner then took the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which affirmed it lacked jurisdiction to overturn the FIG Tribunal's final and binding decision. The CAS panel emphasized that federations' internal rules on filing deadlines and submission methods are legally justified and do not violate international or Swiss law. It noted Oskner's failure to comply with procedural requirements rendered his appeal inadmissible. The CAS upheld the FIG Tribunal's decision, confirming Oskner's 12-month suspension and the retention of his CHF 5,000 appeal fee by the FIG.
The dispute also involved arguments over the interpretation of Article 29 of the FIG Code of Discipline, which governs appeal submissions. The decisive factor for an appeal's validity is the time of delivery to the FIG Office, not the time of sending, with exceptions only for submissions mailed through a Swiss post office. Electronic submissions require an officially certified electronic signature via a secure server, which Oskner's email lacked. The CAS Panel rejected Oskner's claim that the rules were unfair, stating the differing requirements for notifications and appeals are justified by the distinct interests of the parties involved. The Panel upheld the FIG Tribunal's decision, dismissing Oskner's appeal due to non-compliance with filing requirements and confirming the FIG's original decision. The case underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules in sports arbitration and the limited scope for CAS intervention in finalized federation decisions.