The case involves Tatyana Andrianova, a middle-distance runner, who appealed a decision by the All Russia Athletic Federation (ARAF) regarding an anti-doping rule violation. The dispute arose from the re-analysis of her sample from the 2005 IAAF World Championships, which initially showed no prohibited substances but later tested positive for Stanozolol in 2015. ARAF imposed a two-year ineligibility period and disqualified her results from 2005 to 2007. Andrianova challenged this decision before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the case was time-barred under the statute of limitations. The central legal issue was whether the 2015 IAAF Anti-Doping Rules (ADR), which extended the statute of limitations to ten years, could be applied retroactively to her case. The CAS panel, led by Prof. Ulrich Haas, ruled that the new statute of limitations could only apply if the previous eight-year limitation period under the 2005 rules had not already expired by the time the 2015 ADR came into force. Since the original limitation period had expired in 2013, the retroactive application of the ten-year rule was deemed unfair and incompatible with the principle of legal certainty under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The CAS emphasized that federations must interpret their rules in line with human rights principles, even if the 2015 ADR omitted explicit references to human rights. It rejected the argument that procedural rules like statutes of limitations could be applied retroactively without limits, stressing the importance of fairness and legal certainty. The panel concluded that the ten-year statute of limitations under the 2015 ADR could not revive a case already time-barred before its enactment. The decision reinforced the protection of athletes' procedural rights and prevented arbitrary extensions of disciplinary actions. The case was resolved without a hearing, as both parties agreed to proceed based on written submissions.
Andrianova argued that the eight-year limitation period under the 2005 rules had expired by 2013, rendering any sanctions invalid. She also sought the annulment of the decision against her, reimbursement of legal costs, and the application of Swiss law due to its connection with the World Anti-Doping Code. ARAF did not oppose her claims. The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction and deemed the appeal admissible, as it met procedural requirements under Article R47 of the CAS Code. The appeal was filed within the 45-day limit prescribed by the 2015 ADR, following the notification of the decision on 9 October 2015. The Sole Arbitrator determined that a hearing was unnecessary, as both parties agreed to a written submission process.
The applicable law was the ADR, with Russian law applying subsidiarily, as the parties had not agreed on Swiss law and the federation was domiciled in Russia. The dispute primarily concerned the interpretation of Rule 49 of the 2015 ADR, addressing the retroactive application of the statute of limitations. The Sole Arbitrator concluded that the new statute of limitations could only apply retroactively if the previous limitation period had not already expired by the effective date of the 2015 ADR. The decision also highlighted human rights considerations, noting that federations cannot disregard human rights principles simply by excluding them from their rules. The Sole Arbitrator referenced the ECHR, emphasizing that procedural fairness must be upheld, even in arbitration.
The alleged anti-doping violation occurred on 9 August 2005, and the eight-year limitation period expired by 8 August 2013. The 2015 ADR extended this period to ten years, but the Sole Arbitrator ruled it could not apply retroactively to time-barred cases. The CAS upheld Andrianova's appeal, annulling the ARAF's decision dated 2 October 2015, and dismissed all other claims. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to established legal frameworks and ensuring equitable treatment in disciplinary proceedings, reinforcing that retroactive application of longer limitation periods to time-barred cases violates fundamental fairness and legal certainty.