The case involves a complex legal dispute between the Pan-American Team Handball Federation (PATHF) and the International Handball Federation (IHF) over decisions made by the IHF Council and Congress in 2017 and 2018. The central issues revolved around the IHF's decision to split PATHF into two separate confederations (the Implementation Decision) and its decision to suspend PATHF (the Suspension Decision). PATHF contested these actions, arguing they were procedurally flawed and lacked legal basis, while the IHF maintained they were justified under its statutes. The conflict began when PATHF held an Extraordinary Congress in October 2017 without inviting the IHF President, which the IHF deemed a violation of its statutes. The IHF Congress in November 2017 delegated authority to the IHF Council to address the issue, leading to the contested decisions in January 2018.
PATHF filed multiple appeals, first internally with the IHF Arbitration Commission and Tribunal, which rejected its claims, and then with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS proceedings involved disputes over jurisdiction, admissibility, and procedural matters. A key jurisdictional ruling came on 14 November 2018, when the CAS President determined that CAS lacked jurisdiction over the Suspension Decision, as it had been definitively resolved in an earlier Order on Provisional Measures. The CAS also addressed the principle of res judicata, emphasizing that decisions on jurisdiction by the Division President are final and binding.
On the merits, the CAS ruled that the Implementation Decision was null and void because the underlying Congress Decision had already been annulled in a prior CAS award (CAS 2018/A/5745). The IHF argued that the appeal was moot since the decision was already void, but PATHF sought formal annulment for clarity. The Sole Arbitrator agreed with PATHF, declaring the Implementation Decision null and void and annulling the IHF Arbitration Tribunal's decision upholding it. However, the CAS declined to rule on the Suspension Decision, citing lack of jurisdiction.
Regarding costs, PATHF sought reimbursement for expenses incurred during internal IHF proceedings, but the CAS ruled that such costs were not refundable under the applicable rules. The final award, issued on 10 May 2019, partially upheld PATHF's appeal, annulled the IHF Council's decision to divide the Pan-American continent, and dismissed all other motions. The case underscores the complexities of sports governance and the role of arbitration in resolving disputes between international federations and their members, highlighting the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to statutory requirements.