The case revolves around Sergiu Ciobanu, a Moldovan-born marathon runner who became an Irish citizen in 2015, and his appeal against decisions by Athletics Ireland (AI) and the Olympic Council of Ireland (OCI) for not selecting him to represent Ireland in the 2016 Rio Olympics. Despite meeting the qualifying standards and being ranked second among Irish marathon runners, Ciobanu was not nominated by AI, which instead selected Kevin Seaward, Mick Clohisey, and Paul Pollock. After an internal appeal to AI was dismissed without reasons, Ciobanu took his case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the selection process lacked transparency and fairness. AI contested CAS's jurisdiction, claiming no agreement existed to submit the dispute to CAS. The sole arbitrator, Michael Beloff QC, ruled that CAS lacked jurisdiction because Ciobanu failed to prove AI had accepted arbitration under CAS rules. The arbitrator noted that past ad hoc agreements during Olympics did not set a binding precedent and that an agreement between Ciobanu and OCI did not extend to AI.
On the merits of the selection process, the arbitrator categorized selection mechanisms into purely objective, hybrid, and wholly subjective types. AI's policy, granting selectors "sole discretion" while listing non-exclusive factors, fell between hybrid and subjective. The arbitrator found no abuse in the process, as selectors considered relevant athletic factors like form and competitive record while disregarding irrelevant ones like race or religion. However, the arbitrator emphasized that selection policies must be transparent and should not introduce new criteria without notifying athletes.
CAS dismissed Ciobanu's appeal due to lack of jurisdiction, upholding AI and OCI's decisions. The ruling clarified that CAS jurisdiction depends on mutual agreement and that selection processes, even discretionary, must remain fair and transparent. The case also highlighted procedural complexities in sports arbitration, particularly concerning athlete selection for major competitions. The arbitrator examined whether CAS had authority under the AI Policy and OCI Agreement, concluding neither explicitly granted CAS jurisdiction. While a previous case (Cuddihy) suggested an ad hoc agreement for CAS appeals in 2012, no such agreement existed in 2016. The OCI admitted intending to include a CAS appeal provision but failed to do so.
On the merits, the arbitrator observed that AI's policy allowed selectors discretion while listing non-exclusive factors. Since all contenders met entry standards, selectors based decisions on athletics-specific criteria without bias. Evidence showed no procedural abuse or discrimination against Ciobanu, despite his belief his performance warranted selection. The arbitrator concluded the selectors adhered to the policy, making a lawful, multi-factorial decision. While Ciobanu's disappointment was understandable, it did not provide a legal basis to overturn the selection. The appeal was dismissed, and the case removed from the CAS roll, underscoring the importance of published selection criteria and selectors' discretion in evaluating athletic performance.