The case involves a dispute between the European Wushu Kungfu Federation (EWUF) and the International Wushu Federation (IWUF) regarding a provisional suspension imposed on EWUF by the IWUF Executive Board on April 15, 2021. The suspension followed complaints from several European IWUF members alleging financial improprieties, mismanagement, and anti-democratic practices within EWUF. The IWUF Ethics Committee investigated these claims but provided EWUF only with a summary of the complaints, not the original documents, which EWUF argued hindered its ability to defend itself. EWUF contested the suspension, claiming it lacked legal basis and violated principles of fairness, including the right to access information and protection against self-incrimination. The suspension was upheld by the IWUF Appeal Jury, prompting EWUF to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS examined several key issues, including jurisdiction, admissibility, applicable law, and the merits of the appeal. The Sole Arbitrator determined that CAS had jurisdiction under Article R47 of the CAS Code, as the IWUF Constitution and Code of Ethics provided for appeals against certain decisions, and EWUF had exhausted all internal remedies. The Arbitrator also found the appeal admissible, ruling that the provisional suspension constituted a "final decision" under the IWUF Code of Ethics, despite its provisional label. The applicable law was identified as the IWUF rules and regulations, with Swiss law as a subsidiary source. The Arbitrator rejected IWUF's argument that the suspension was merely nominal, noting its significant impact on EWUF's recognition and activities.
On the merits, the Arbitrator highlighted procedural flaws in the IWUF's handling of the case. The suspension, initially intended as provisional, had lasted over fifteen months without resolution, effectively becoming indefinite. The Arbitrator emphasized that provisional measures must remain temporary and cannot be used coercively to force cooperation without evidence of ethical violations. The IWUF failed to provide EWUF with the original complaints or sufficient details, undermining procedural fairness. While the IWUF cited confidentiality and witness security concerns, it provided no evidence to support these claims. The Arbitrator concluded that the suspension did not comply with the IWUF Constitution or Code of Ethics, as it lacked proper legal foundation and violated principles of natural justice.
The CAS upheld EWUF's appeal, annulling the IWUF Appeal Jury's decision and rescinding the provisional measures. The ruling clarified that the annulment did not address the merits of the allegations against EWUF, leaving the Ethics Committee's ongoing investigation unaffected. The decision reinforced the importance of procedural fairness, timely resolutions, and the right to appeal in sports governance, ensuring that provisional measures are not used indefinitely without due process. The case underscores the tension between enforcing disciplinary measures and upholding fundamental rights within international sports federations.