The case revolves around the dispute between Ukrainian draughts player Iurii Anikieiev and the International Draughts Federation (IDF) concerning his three-year suspension from IDF competitions. The suspension, imposed on 16 December 2016, was based on allegations that Anikieiev violated the IDF's Code of Ethics by publishing biased and unreliable information, thereby damaging the federation's reputation. Anikieiev contested the suspension, arguing it was unjust and aimed at eliminating strong competitors. The conflict began when he was barred from the 2016 European Championship in Georgia, a decision he challenged through correspondence with the IDF and the Ukrainian Draughts Federation (UDF). The IDF maintained that the exclusion was final and not subject to appeal, citing repeated ethical violations.
Anikieiev's suspension was later extended to three years following further alleged breaches, including media statements deemed defamatory by the IDF. The IDF Board made this decision without Anikieiev's participation, and he was not given prior notice of the allegations or an opportunity to defend himself. Anikieiev appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the IDF violated procedural fairness and natural justice by failing to adhere to its own regulations and denying him a fair hearing. The CAS panel, led by Sole Arbitrator Philippe Sands QC, examined whether the IDF breached procedural rights and whether Anikieiev had exhausted all available legal remedies before appealing to CAS.
The panel noted that a judicial or quasi-judicial body's refusal to rule on a request within a reasonable time could constitute a denial of justice, warranting CAS intervention. It emphasized that legal remedies must be actual and effective, providing a clear procedural path for redress. The panel also considered the timing of Anikieiev's awareness of the IDF's decision, which varied depending on whether he participated in the meeting, received minutes, or was formally notified. The IDF argued that CAS lacked jurisdiction because the suspension was issued by the IDF Board, not the Ethics Committee, and that internal appeals to the General Meeting should have been pursued first. Anikieiev countered that the Code of Ethics explicitly recognized CAS as an arbitral body for appeals and that internal appeals would be ineffective.
A telephone hearing was held on 29 September 2017, where both parties reiterated their positions. The CAS proposed suspending proceedings to allow for a fresh internal review by the Ethics Committee, to which both parties agreed. However, the Ethics Committee later refused to consider Anikieiev's complaint, citing the UDF's alleged financial debt and suspended membership, despite evidence that the UDF had paid its fees. Anikieiev argued that the refusal constituted a denial of justice and appealed back to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator ruled that the IDF's actions bypassed procedural safeguards and violated natural justice, granting CAS jurisdiction. The Arbitrator also found Anikieiev's appeal timely, as the 21-day deadline began when he was formally notified of the suspension.
On the merits, the CAS annulled the December 2016 suspension due to the lack of a proper decision by the Ethics Committee and referred the matter back for an expedited determination. The ruling underscored the importance of procedural fairness in disciplinary actions and the need for accessible appeal mechanisms. The case highlights the tension between sports federations' disciplinary authority and athletes' right to fair treatment, emphasizing the role of CAS in ensuring justice when internal processes fail. The decision reaffirmed that unreasonable delays or refusals to rule by competent bodies can justify direct appeals to higher authorities like CAS.