The case CAS 2019/A/6274 involved a dispute between several race walkers—Inês Henriques, Claire Woods, Paola Pérez, Johana Ordóňez, Magaly Bonilla, Ainhoa Pinedo, Erin Taylor-Talcott, and Quentin Rew—and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) regarding the exclusion of the women's 50km race walk event from the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games, while the men's event was retained. The athletes argued that this exclusion was discriminatory and violated principles of gender equality, as the event could have been conducted alongside the men's race without increasing athlete quotas or costs. The case was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), with a panel consisting of Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, the Hon. Annabelle Bennett AC SC, and Mr. Pierre Muller, which issued its award on 3 February 2020.
The central issue was whether CAS had jurisdiction to hear the athletes' appeal. For CAS to have jurisdiction, three prerequisites must be met: (i) the parties must have agreed to CAS's competence, (ii) there must be a decision by a sports-related body, and (iii) internal legal remedies must have been exhausted. The panel emphasized that arbitration is based on consent, and under Rule 61.2 of the Olympic Charter (OC), only accredited Olympic athletes could invoke CAS jurisdiction. The athletes in this case, though part of the Olympic Movement, were not yet accredited for the Tokyo Games and thus lacked the necessary legal relationship with the IOC to establish jurisdiction.
The factual background revealed that the IOC Executive Board had finalized the Tokyo 2020 Olympic program on 9 June 2017, which included the men's 50km race walk but omitted the women's event. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) later requested the IOC to add the women's event, but the IOC declined, citing the advanced planning stage of the Games and the precedent it would set for other sports federations. The athletes pursued legal action, arguing that the IOC's decision violated gender equality principles under the Olympic Charter, Swiss law, and the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
The CAS panel concluded that it lacked jurisdiction ratione personae over the athletes because they were not yet accredited for the Olympics and thus could not rely on the arbitration clause in the OC. The decision underscored the importance of a direct legal relationship with the IOC for CAS jurisdiction and highlighted the limitations faced by athletes seeking to challenge Olympic program decisions before accreditation. The panel's ruling effectively dismissed the athletes' appeal on jurisdictional grounds, leaving the IOC's decision intact.
The case highlighted the procedural rigor of CAS proceedings and the complexities of addressing gender equality in Olympic event programming. While the athletes' arguments centered on substantive rights, the panel's decision focused on jurisdictional and procedural matters, emphasizing the need for clear consent and specific agreements in arbitration. The ruling reinforced the principle that only accredited Olympic athletes could invoke CAS jurisdiction under the Olympic Charter, leaving unresolved the broader issue of gender discrimination in Olympic event selection. The CAS dismissed the appeal, affirming its lack of jurisdiction in the matter.